Back

Sensitivity and specificity of a rapid test for assessment of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in a community-based setting in Brazil

Pellanda, L. C.; Wendland, E. M.; McBride, A. J.; Tovo-Rodrigues, L.; Ferreira, M. R.; Dellagostin, O. A.; Silveira, M. F.; Barros, A. J.; Hallal, P. C.; Victora, C. G.

2020-05-10 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.05.06.20093476 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWhile the recommended laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is a molecular based assay, population-based studies to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 usually use serological assays. ObjectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a rapid diagnostic test for COVID-19 compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). MethodsWe evaluated the sensitivity using a panel of finger prick blood samples from participants >18 years of age that had been tested for COVID-19 by qRT-PCR. For assessing specificity, we used serum samples from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort participants collected in 2012 with no exposure to SARS-CoV-2. ResultsThe sensitivity of the test was 77.1% (95% CI 66.6 - 85.6), based upon 83 subjects who had tested positive for qRT-PCR at least 10 days before the rapid diagnostic test (RDT). Based upon 100 sera samples, specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 92.9 - 99.8). There was substantial agreement (Kappa score 0.76) between the qRT-PCR results and the RDT. InterpretationThe validation results are well in line with previous assessments of the test, and confirm that it is sufficiently precise for epidemiological studies aimed at monitoring levels and trends of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Matching journals

The top 14 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.