Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2025
A Rapid, Multiplex Dual Reporter IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assay for a Multiplexed Bead-Based Flow Analysis System
Published on: April 6, 2021
Clinitest rapid COVID-19 antigen test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multicenter evaluation study
Paloma Merino-Amador1, Patricia González-Donapetry2, Mercedes Domínguez-Fernández3
1Microbiology Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain; Department of Medicine, Universidad Complutense School of Medicine, Madrid, Spain.
Objectives:
RT-PCR assay is the reference method for diagnosis of COVID-19, but it is also a laborious and time-consuming technic, limiting the availability of testing. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Clinitest Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test (ClinitestRT) (SIEMENS) for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens.
Methods:
This prospective multicenter study was carried out in three Spanish university hospitals including individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria for COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the ClinitestRT, as a point-of-care test, and a diagnostic RT-PCR test.
Results:
Overall sensitivity and specificity for the ClinitestRT among the 450 patients studied were 93.3% (CI 95%: 89.7-96.8) and 99.2% (CI 95%: 97.2-99.8), respectively. Sensitivity in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course was 93.6% (CI 95%: 89.2-96.3), and in participants who had a CT < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 98.4% (CI 95%: 94.5-99.6). Agreement between techniques was 96.7% (kappa score: 0.93; CI 95%: 0.90-0.97).
Conclusions:
The ClinitestRT provides good clinical performance, with more reliable results for patients with a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.
