A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of Two Commercial Kits for Qualitative Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antigens in Nasopharyngeal Specimens. | LitMetric

Background: Two rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 targeting the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 were compared with real-time RT-PCR as the reference method.

Methods: Ninety-six nasopharyngeal swab samples, comprising 56 positive and 40 negative samples confirmed through rRT-PCR were collected and retested to determine the reliability of the two nasopharyngeal RATs.

Results: The overall sensitivity and specificity of both RATs were 64.3% (95% confidence interval 50.4 - 76.6%) and 100% (95% confidence interval 91.2 - 100%), respectively. Cohen's kappa coefficient of agreement of both RATs to rRT-PCR was 0.600 (95% confidence interval 0.457 - 0.743) (p < 0.001), showing almost perfect agreement when the Ct values were less than 25 in rRT-PCR. A significant difference in Ct values between true positives and false negatives was observed (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Compared to rRT-PCR, RATs have fewer false negatives. In suspected COVID-19 cases, negative RAT results should be retested using either RAT or rRT-PCR.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2023.230908DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

95% confidence
12
confidence interval
12
false negatives
8
rrt-pcr
5
evaluation commercial
4
commercial kits
4
kits qualitative
4
qualitative detection
4
detection sars-cov-2
4
sars-cov-2 antigens
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!