Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Various posts highlight specific findings from the publication, such as the pooled sensitivity of 71.2% and high specificity of 98.9% for rapid antigen tests. Comments that express skepticism about the reliability of some RATs, like noting the variability in sensitivity among different studies, and explanations suggesting RATs can effectively detect infections during the early stages contribute to a critical yet informed discussion. The tone is analytical, emphasizing both the value of the research and the nuances necessary for real-world application.
Many posts reflect a consensus that while there are some limitations, the article presents valuable insights on the efficacy of rapid antigen tests (RATs).
Users showcase a high level of curiosity concerning the results and implications of the systematic review, citing specific statistics and findings.
The discussions include detailed references to data and individual test performances, indicating thoughtful consideration of the article.
Overall, the sentiment suggests that the publication is viewed as significantly influential in understanding the role of RATs in COVID-19 diagnostics.
ולחדשות של מחר. כולם קיבלו בדיקות אנטיגן. אבל מה דיוק הבדיקות? ואיך הן ביחס לבדיקות הPCR? ככל שילדיכם חולה יותר כך יש סיכוי גבוה יותר שהוא יזוהה ע״י הערכה הביתית. בחולה סימפטומטי הדיוק כ80-85% ובילד.ה אסימפטומטי 50-60%.חשוב לדעת! https://t.co/N73XPDQnRv https://t.co/RqoeYPSvrM
In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: https://t.co/oFqwvRLD2k @cdenki @lukasbruemmer @StephanKatzens1 #COVID19 https://t.co/oJcb7idZpl
@arijitchakrav @HarrySpoelstra @TKesteman @DavidJoffe64 @ejustin46 @MeetJess @NjbBari3 @lfwhite14 Estimates of RAT sensitivity vary wildly among studies, even for the same test. IMO the "RAT catches infectious people" claim is not backed by the data. However, a decent RAT will catch people with the highest viral loads (measured by PCR) https://t.co/SaaJUEZtYk
#avct #odx #abdx #ncyt Covid lft Independent study including Innova. Study was partially funded/sponsored by UK gov as well as govs/public entities. PLOS Medicine: Accuracy of Covid antigen rapid diagnostics: A living systematic review meta-analysis https://t.co/22Lr8E4tso 1/4 https://t.co/KFhJT1L55F
@ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrelevanten Infektionen https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
Aus unserer eigenen Erfahrung in einer klinischen Studie und auch von der Evidenzsynthese sind Speichelproben nicht geeignet mit Schnelltests (?Proteasen, Puffer nicht optimiert...), und die Tests mit Speichel nicht gut funktionieren. https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
This video reviews the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (AgRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2, revealing a pooled sensitivity of 71.2% and a high specificity of 98.9%. Proper test administration is crucial for improved…
@liberalincincy @mcfunny @Aella_Girl yah, several. Here is one: https://t.co/0sholj7tzw Are you in the medical community and/or do you have access honest doctors and frontline workers? do you have legit sources on the 0.005% claim (that's a new a one to me!) lol
@arijitchakrav @HarrySpoelstra @TKesteman @DavidJoffe64 @ejustin46 @MeetJess @NjbBari3 @lfwhite14 Estimates of RAT sensitivity vary wildly among studies, even for the same test. IMO the "RAT catches infectious people" claim is not backed by the data. However, a decent RAT will catch people with the highest viral loads (measured by PCR) https://t.co/SaaJUEZtYk
RT @madistod: @FrankCianfrani I would consider a RAT to be a possible 'layer' in a transmission prevention strategy, with effectiveness of…
RT @madistod: @FrankCianfrani I would consider a RAT to be a possible 'layer' in a transmission prevention strategy, with effectiveness of…
@FrankCianfrani I would consider a RAT to be a possible 'layer' in a transmission prevention strategy, with effectiveness of 50% or so. Problems arise when too much faith is placed in negative results, undermining other layers https://t.co/SaaJUEZtYk
@FinchTH In this meta-analysis: "pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%)" See table 1 for individual RATs. Clinical sensitivity estimates vary widely for the same test among different studies. https://t.co/SaaJUF01NS
@midnucas @FinchTH The sensitivity of some of these tests is really poor. Check out Coris at 40% in this meta-analysis https://t.co/HQHhpJpVB1 https://t.co/5ZiJ1j9xYZ
@FinchTH Unfortunately, they seem to be few and far between. Also, the data is very hard to trust. Check out the variability in sensitivity estimates for these rapid tests (see table 1): https://t.co/SaaJUFh4PS
RT @piloteerpax: L. E. Brümmer et al., "Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-ana…
L. E. Brümmer et al., "Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis": https://t.co/3fcUUzhBYr
@schmaennes @PEI_Germany Es gibt einige unabhängige klinische Studien. Oft aber für dieselben Tests. Siehe unter https://t.co/zcvyOpDBHY Hier wurde die Sensitivität aber nicht nach Viruslast (Ct-Wert) differenziert. Siehe dafür die dazugehörige Meta-Analyse: https://t.co/gTKEDGzzQ5
RT @AusHealthcare: RATs 'detect the vast majority of infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load…
RT @AusHealthcare: RATs 'detect the vast majority of infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load…
RT @AusHealthcare: RATs 'detect the vast majority of infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load…
RAT:14254 article,214 clinical accuracy dataset,112,323 samples,meta-analyses,pool Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2%,& 98.9%;Sensitivity⬆️to 76.3% analysis wth instructions. LumiraDx hv max sensitivity 88.2%,Ag-RDT,Std Q nasal 80.2% sensitivity https://t.co/D5Gy0i8ESO
RT @cdenki: Aus unserer eigenen Erfahrung in einer klinischen Studie und auch von der Evidenzsynthese sind Speichelproben nicht geeignet mi…
RT @cdenki: Aus unserer eigenen Erfahrung in einer klinischen Studie und auch von der Evidenzsynthese sind Speichelproben nicht geeignet mi…
Aus unserer eigenen Erfahrung in einer klinischen Studie und auch von der Evidenzsynthese sind Speichelproben nicht geeignet mit Schnelltests (?Proteasen, Puffer nicht optimiert...), und die Tests mit Speichel nicht gut funktionieren. https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
@IhisTeemu > Onko tästä mitään näyttöä On sitä jo vähän liikaakin (että ehtisi käydä kaikkea läpi). Viime kesänä julkaistiin katsausartikkeli, missä katsastetaan läpi 133 yksittäistä tutkimusta. https://t.co/Ie1mnOGzXA
RT @jaykay_jayk: #avct #odx #abdx #ncyt Covid lft Independent study including Innova. Study was partially funded/sponsored by UK gov as we…
RT @jaykay_jayk: #avct #odx #abdx #ncyt Covid lft Independent study including Innova. Study was partially funded/sponsored by UK gov as we…
#avct #odx #abdx #ncyt Covid lft Independent study including Innova. Study was partially funded/sponsored by UK gov as well as govs/public entities. PLOS Medicine: Accuracy of Covid antigen rapid diagnostics: A living systematic review meta-analysis https://t.co/22Lr8E4tso 1/4 https://t.co/KFhJT1L55F
@ryan_landay @LongDesertTrain "Rapigen (LOD, in log10 copies per swab: 10.2) and Coris (LOD 7.46) were found to perform worse than Panbio (LOD 6.6 to 6.1) and Standard Q (LOD 6.8 to 6.0), whereas Clinitest (LOD 6.0) and BinaxNOW by Abbott (LOD 4.6 to 4.9) performed better" hmmm https://t.co/90rMYATCWV
@EusticeTheSheep @elisabethkaseda @jubricant I don’t know where people got the idea rapid tests were inaccurate. “we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load” https://t.co/99du0zatJY
@iamalexzislin Diese Metastudie hat eine Spezifität von 99,1% gefunden. Das heißt, dass von 1000 Tests 9 falsch positiv sind. https://t.co/34lPaSF6pT
@KaiMeinecke Die analytischen Daten aus Berlin und Heidelberg, die klinischen Daten aus unserer systematischen Evidenzsynthese, haben wiederholt gezeigt, dass der Test mit als einer der besten funktioniert. Ausserdem ist er auch mit einer der einfachsten. https://t.co/MfVhC6ge46
@DHW13620777 @Pulptor @Te_Taipo Get off Facebook conspiracy pages and read real research https://t.co/NDsxOi3j5L
RT @cdenki: @ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrel…
RT @cdenki: @ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrel…
@bauhausandmies @LostArcNZ https://t.co/g4dwwQx4Zt
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
RT @cdenki: @ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrel…
RT @cdenki: @ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrel…
RT @cdenki: @ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrel…
@Tauranga2020 @Theresoucefult1 @NZQandA @JudithCollinsMP Depends on the exact situations and kit used - hopefully better than the 0% sensitivity measured in one trial. https://t.co/g4dwwQx4Zt
@NZQandA @JudithCollinsMP Which RAT is Collins proposing, and how capable is it of actually identifying those with covid https://t.co/g4dwwQx4Zt
@ewyler @Dr_Cate_P @kaul_mz Und hier noch der wissenschaftliche Artikel dazu. Gute Tests erkennen fast 4/5 der uebertragungsrelevanten Infektionen https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
Plus - natürlich machen Schnelltests als ein Instrument im Baukasten der Pandemiebekämpfung Sinn. Akkurate Anwendung und sich nichts vorgaukeln, darauf kommt es an. Studienlage u.a. https://t.co/0dCyThSNgy
RT @tripdatabase: New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.…
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
Bisschen Studienlage: https://t.co/0dCyThSNgy + + https://t.co/8dMftyfR71 + https://t.co/4QCUhavlWo
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
Übersicht von Sensitivitäts- und Spezifitätswerten verschiedener Antigen-Tests aus einer Metastudie https://t.co/IOdljELeGf https://t.co/t8to7yLO0A
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
RT @COVID_Evidence: PubMed: Correction: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-an…
PubMed: Correction: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis: [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003735.]. https://t.co/ZWQ0iaUqGP #covid19 #SARSCOV2 #coronavirus
@kathrinkuehnk @F_I_Briest "Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis" https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
RT @RevistaMFSamfyc: Exactitud de las nuevas pruebas diagnósticas rápidas de antígeno para SARS-CoV-2: revisión sistemática en evolución y…
Exactitud de las nuevas pruebas diagnósticas rápidas de antígeno para SARS-CoV-2: revisión sistemática en evolución y metaanálisis https://t.co/1NZji4qgOV PMID 34383750
@paultudor @ClintVSmith Never existed, never been tested https://t.co/g4dwwQx4Zt
RT @tripdatabase: New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.…
RT @tripdatabase: New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.…
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
RT @tripdatabase: New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.…
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
RT @tripdatabase: New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.…
New2Trip: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: living systematic review & meta-analysis https://t.co/iPfGaScIbO
@joelbourne1 @DrJBhattacharya An immaterial quantity: - https://t.co/K5TKQy4yXb - https://t.co/BWAwne69kW
EvidenceAlerts | Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/xBx5wV7dCf
@AnteoTech_ From “Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis - PLOS” by LE Brümmer · 2021 · Cited by 8 — To inform decision makers on the best choice of individual tests As ubiquitous Visiting workplaces daily As lunch vans? https://t.co/nlNNpgJgDl
RT @LksAse: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/RP2h7K50…
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/RP2h7K50UI
@jeff_kennett The rapid tests when performed in the first week of illness, when viral load is high do have good accuracy. However, the research below highlights the variability in results between tests. Would you be willing to gamble this with a large crowd Jeff ? https://t.co/6Hxw41IsnT
RT @LumiraDx: . @PLOSMedicine publishes systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 60 #SARSCoV2 #antigentests: Ranks LumiraDx’s SARS…
RT @RackMada: ולחדשות של מחר. כולם קיבלו בדיקות אנטיגן. אבל מה דיוק הבדיקות? ואיך הן ביחס לבדיקות הPCR? ככל שילדיכם חולה יותר כך יש סיכוי ג…
RT @RackMada: ולחדשות של מחר. כולם קיבלו בדיקות אנטיגן. אבל מה דיוק הבדיקות? ואיך הן ביחס לבדיקות הPCR? ככל שילדיכם חולה יותר כך יש סיכוי ג…
ולחדשות של מחר. כולם קיבלו בדיקות אנטיגן. אבל מה דיוק הבדיקות? ואיך הן ביחס לבדיקות הPCR? ככל שילדיכם חולה יותר כך יש סיכוי גבוה יותר שהוא יזוהה ע״י הערכה הביתית. בחולה סימפטומטי הדיוק כ80-85% ובילד.ה אסימפטומטי 50-60%.חשוב לדעת! https://t.co/N73XPDQnRv https://t.co/RqoeYPSvrM
RT @LumiraDx: . @PLOSMedicine publishes systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 60 #SARSCoV2 #antigentests: Ranks LumiraDx’s SARS…
@erlendur Og, safngreining á mörgum antigen prófum. https://t.co/VQXSrXjG7J
@MikaelNiku @AineMarjo @MaaritLeinonen @TimoWahlroos @Jarkko_Hakala @lettipitko Vaikka kuinka paljon. Perustutkimusta, revari, metaa ja mitä Tässä tuore meta. https://t.co/k2b9ZXuB9R
RT @LumiraDx: . @PLOSMedicine publishes systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 60 #SARSCoV2 #antigentests: Ranks LumiraDx’s SARS…
. @PLOSMedicine publishes systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 60 #SARSCoV2 #antigentests: Ranks LumiraDx’s SARS-CoV-2 Ag test as most sensitive and accurate. https://t.co/OhSRJbwlYW
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @cdenki: Did I really forget the link? here it is https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @grip54: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis | @scoopit https://t.c…
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis | @scoopit https://t.co/DfHUa6u9dE
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/NAKeGmUpj4
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
https://t.co/AYvkunLKtV
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
RT @PLOSMedicine: In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tes…
In a living systematic review and meta-analysis, Lukas Brümmer and co-workers report on the accuracy of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: https://t.co/oFqwvRLD2k @cdenki @lukasbruemmer @StephanKatzens1 #COVID19 https://t.co/oJcb7idZpl
RT @bloodSparasites: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/…
RT @COVID_Evidence: PubMed: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis: CONC…
RT @LksAse: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/RP2h7K5…
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/RP2h7K50UI
Impressive systematic review showing pooled sensitivity from 133 clin and analytical accuracy studies https://t.co/HB1AYX2Piu
RT @cdenki: Did I really forget the link? here it is https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/LCeqJlEKFh @PLOSMedicine
Did I really forget the link? here it is https://t.co/yxbYxh8rxj
RT @COVID_Evidence: PubMed: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis: CONC…
PubMed: Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis: CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons… https://t.co/02zSWGAwR0 #covid19 #SARSCOV2 #coronavirus
RT @medrxivpreprint: The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. https:/…
The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/Ae3zknw2j3 #medRxiv