Evaluation of the Panbio COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Test in Subjects Infected with Omicron Using Different Specimens

  1. Rafael Mello Galliez
  2. Larissa Bomfim
  3. Diana Mariani
  4. Isabela de Carvalho Leitão
  5. Anna Carla Pinto Castiñeiras
  6. Cassia Cristina Alves Gonçalves
  7. Bianca Ortiz da Silva
  8. Pedro Henrique Cardoso
  9. Monica Barcelos Arruda
  10. Patricia Alvarez
  11. Rodrigo Brindeiro
  12. Victor Akira Ota
  13. Débora Gomes Marins Rodrigues
  14. Luciana Jesus da Costa
  15. Orlando da Costa Ferreira
  16. Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto Castiñeiras
  17. Debora Souza Faffe
  18. Amilcar Tanuri

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This study showed that the antigen rapid test for COVID19 worked fine using nasal swabs when it was utilized in patients infected with the Omicron variant, showing a concordance with PCR in 93% of patients tested. The nasal swab yielded more reliable results than the oral swab when an antigen rapid diagnosis test (the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test) was used in patients infected with the Omicron variant.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1128/spectrum.01250-22
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.19.22272637: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical statement: The present study was approved by the local ethics review committee from Clementino Fraga Filho University Hospital (
    Consent: All enrolled participants signed written informed consent. 2.3.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.5 Ag-RDT procedure: Nasal, oral, and saliva specimens were tested immediately following collection using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Test Device (Abbott) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    GraphPad Prism version 9.2.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA), and JASP Version 0.16 (JASP Team, 2021, Computer software) were used.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.19.22272637v1 on medRxiv