Evaluating the adequacy of Prima Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test for the assessment of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus
Di Lorenzo, G.; Toniolo, P.; Lurani, C.; Foresti, L.; Carrisi, C.
Show abstract
1.The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020 found health authorities worldwide unprepared to control the pandemic. The adoption of accurate, rapid and inexpensive methods to identify infected subjects in the general population is of paramount relevance for the control of the disease. We evaluated one of the available serological tests, the Prima Lab Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Tests, on 739 volunteers. We first assessed the tests reproducibility by administering it twice on the same day on 104 subjects obtaining and overall score of 93 percent. Since the intensity of the color in the test line regions varies depending on the concentration of Covid-19 antibodies in each sample and that the determination of the positivity depends strictly on the subjective assessment by the reader, after excluding the subjects whose color intensity was too tenuous to be deemed unquestionably positive by the reader the reproducibility increased to 96%. The test would not perform properly for 6 subjects for a very limited overall technical failure of 0.83%. For 138 subjects information was available regarding a previous Real Time PCR nasopharyngeal swab test performed elsewhere. The correspondence of positive results between the two tests was 90.58% (125/138). In spite of some limitation owing especially to the choice of a self selected population sample, we conclude that Prima Lab Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test represents a low-cost, easily applicable and reproducible tool in detecting SARS-Cov-2 diffusion in the general population.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance estimation of two in-house ELISA assays for COVID-19 surveillance through the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulin isotypes 95%
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 95%
- SARS-CoV-2 detection in multi-sample pools in a real pandemic scenario: a screening strategy of choice for active surveillance 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of two RT-PCR techniques for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum for microbiological diagnosis 95%
- A one-step real-time RT-PCR assay for simultaneous typing of SARS-CoV-2 mutations associated with the E484K and N501Y spike protein amino-acid substitutions 95%
- Diagnostic comparison of three fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 97%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 95%
- Evaluation Of A New “All In One” Sars-Cov-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test And Self-Test: Diagnostic Performance And Usability On Child And Adult Population 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A new system in qualitative RT-PCR detecting SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples: an Italian experience. 95%
- A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at-home collected finger-prick dried blood spots 94%
- Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 96%
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 95%
- Antibodies anti-SARS-CoV2 time-course in patients and vaccinated subjects: an evaluation of the harmonization of two different methods 94%
"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.