  Antigen test kits have been used extensively as a screening tool during the
worldwide pandemic of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). While it is generally expected
that taking samples for analysis with PCR testing gives more reliable results
than using antigen test kits, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the
two protocols in the field have not yet been estimated without assuming that
the PCR test constitutes a gold standard. We use latent class models to
estimate the in situ performance of both PCR and antigen testing, using data
from the Danish national registries. The results are based on 240,000 paired
tests results sub-selected from the 55 million test results that were obtained
in Denmark during the period from February 2021 until June 2021.
  We found that the specificity of both tests is very high in our data sample
(>99.7%), while the sensitivity of PCR sampling was estimated to be 95.7% (95%
CI: 92.8-98.4%) and that of the antigen test kits used in Denmark over the
study period was estimated at 53.8% (95% CI: 49.8-57.9%). Our findings can be
used as supplementary information for consideration when implementing serial
testing strategies that employ a confirmatory PCR sample following a positive
result from an antigen test kit, such as the policy used in Denmark. We note
that while this strategy reduces the number of false positives associated with
antigen test screening, it also increases the false negatives. We demonstrate
that the balance of trading false positives for false negatives only favours
the use of serial testing when the expected true prevalence is low. Our results
contain substantial uncertainty in the estimates for sensitivity due to the
relatively small number of positive test results over this period: validation
of our findings in a population with higher prevalence would therefore be
highly relevant for future work.
