Evaluation of the accuracy, ease of use and limit of detection of novel, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2
Krueger, L. J.; Gaeddert, M.; Koeppel, L.; Bruemmer, L.; Gottschalk, C.; Miranda, I. B.; Schnitzler, P.; Kraeusslich, H.-G.; Lindner, A.; Nikolai, O.; Mockenhaupt, F.; Seybold, J.; Corman, V. M.; Drosten, C.; Pollock, N.; Cubas-Atienzar, A.; Welker, A.; DeVos, M.; Knorr, B.; Wright, A. H.; Kontogianni, K.; Collins, A. M.; Adams, E. R.; Sacks, J.; Denkinger, C. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundReliable point-of-care (POC) diagnostics not requiring laboratory infrastructure could be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the Global South. We assessed performance, limit of detection and ease-of-use of three antigen-detecting, rapid POC tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2. MethodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study recruited participants suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 in Germany and the UK. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs (NP) or NP and/or oropharyngeal swabs (OP) were collected from participants (one for clinical RT-PCR and one for Ag-RDT). Performance of each of three Ag-RDTs was compared to RT-PCR overall, and according to predefined subcategories e.g. cycle threshold (CT)-value, days from symptoms onset, etc. In addition, limited verification of the analytical limit-of-detection (LOD) was determined. To understand the usability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. ResultsBetween April 17th and August 25th, 2020, 2417 participants were enrolled, with 70 (3.0%) testing positive by RT-PCR. The best-performing test (SD Biosensor, Inc. STANDARD Q) was 76x6% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 62x8-86x4) sensitive and 99x3% (CI 98x6-99x6) specific. A sub-analysis showed all samples with RT-PCR CT-values <25 were detectable by STANDARD Q. The test was considered easy-to-use (SUS 86/100) and suitable for POC. Bioeasy and Coris showed specificity of 93x1% (CI 91x0%-94x8%) and 95x8% (CI 93x4%-97x4%), respectively, not meeting the predefined target of [≥]98%. ConclusionThere is large variability in performance of Ag-RDT with SD Biosensor showing promise. Given the usability at POC, this test is likely to have impact despite imperfect sensitivity; however further research and modelling are needed.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 96%
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 96%
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR 96%
- SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Detection Tests: test performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination 95%
- A point-of-care lateral flow assay for neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison 96%
- A highly effective reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 95%
- Comparison between mid-nasal swabs and buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 98%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 96%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 96%
"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.