Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of a novel antigen-based rapid detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples

Open access
Porte, Lorena, Legarraga, Paulette, Vollrath, Valeska, Aguilera, Ximena, Munita, José M, Araos, Rafael, Pizarro, Gabriel, Vial, Pablo, Iruretagoyena, Mirentxu, Dittrich, Sabine, Weitzel, Thomas·2020·International Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods are of high priority. This study was performed to evaluate a novel rapid antigen detection test (RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory samples. METHODS: The fluorescence immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (Bioeasy Biotechnology Co., Shenzhen, China) was evaluated using universal transport medium with nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases. Diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 real-time (RT)-PCR. RESULTS: A total of 127 samples were included; 82 were RT-PCR-positive. The median patient age was 38 years, 53.5% were male, and 93.7% were from the first week after symptom onset. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 93.9% (95% confidence interval 86.5-97.4%) and 100% (95% confidence interval 92.1-100%), respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 96.1% and Kappa coefficient of 0.9. Sensitivity was significantly higher in samples with high viral loads. CONCLUSIONS: The RDT evaluated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples mainly obtained during the first week of symptoms and with high viral loads, despite the use of a non-validated sample material. The assay has the potential to become an important tool for early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in situations with limited access to molecular methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.098

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Porte, L., Legarraga, P., Vollrath, V., Aguilera, X., Munita, J. M., Araos, R., Pizarro, G., Vial, P., Iruretagoyena, M., Dittrich, S., & Weitzel, T.
Venue
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
99
Pages
328-333
ISSN
1201-9712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3017023889
Cited by
371
References
39
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of a novel antigen-based rapid detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.098
The paper
Porte, L., Legarraga, P., Vollrath, V., Aguilera, X., Munita, J. M., Araos, R., Pizarro, G., Vial, P., Iruretagoyena, M., Dittrich, S., & Weitzel, T. (2020). Evaluation of a novel antigen-based rapid detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.098

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.