Cited by 41SARS-CoV-2 detection and testingCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research

Diagnostic accuracy of covid-19 rapid antigen tests with unsupervised self-sampling in people with symptoms in the omicron period: cross sectional study

Open access
Schuit, Ewoud, Venekamp, Roderick P, Hooft, Lotty, Veldhuijzen, Irene K, van den Bijllaardt, Wouter, Pas, Suzan D, Zwart, Vivian F, Lodder, Esther B +12 more·2022·BMJ

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Objective: To assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period. Design: Prospective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. Setting: Three public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022. Participants: 6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing. Interventions: Participants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers). Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard. Results: During phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ 2 test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively). Conclusions: Sensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.

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 · 10.1136/bmj-2022-071215

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 16 · Cited by 41

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [11]de Michelena P Torres I Ramos-García A. Real-life performance of a COVID-19 rapid antigen detection test targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein for diagnosis of COVID-19 due to the Omicron variant. medRxiv. 2022 10.1101/2022.02.02.22270295. PMC8863328 35217106 · DOI
  2. [12]Schrom J Marquez C Pilarowski G. Direct Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal RT-PCR and Rapid Antigen Test (BinaxNOW™) at a Community Testing Site During an Omicron Surge. medRxiv. 2022 10.1101/2022.01.08.22268954. · DOI

Authors
Schuit, E., Venekamp, R. P., Hooft, L., Veldhuijzen, I. K., van den Bijllaardt, W., Pas, S. D., Zwart, V. F., Lodder, E. B., Hellwich, M., Koppelman, M., Molenkamp, R., Wijers, C. J. H., Vroom, I. H., Smeets, L. C., Nagel-Imming, C. R. S., Han, W. G. H., van den Hof, S., Kluytmans, J. A. J. W., van de Wijgert, J. H. H. M., & Moons, K. G. M.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • Microvida Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands
  • Amphia Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • GGD West-Brabant (NL)
  • GGD Hart voor Brabant (NL)
  • Sanquin (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  • Reinier Haga Medical Diagnostic Centre, Delft, Netherlands
  • Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
  • Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
Corresponding author
Moons, Karel G M
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-09-14
Volume
378
Pages
e071215
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4295795034
Cited by
41
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, rapid antigen test, self-sampling, Omicron variant, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, confirmatory testing, nasal swabs, throat swabs, Clinitest, RT-PCR, diagnostic performance, predictive value
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Testing, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Netherlands, Prospective Studies, Specimen Handling, Sodium Bicarbonate, Copper Sulfate, Citric Acid

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