Comparison and analysis of various complementary diagnosis methods for the current situation and problems of COVID-19 diagnosis
Huh, H. J.; Kim, D.-M.; Chae, S. L.
Show abstract
We evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of fluorescence immunoassay (FIA) and two types of serological diagnostic tests: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunochromatographic assay (ICA) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and antibody to diagnose COVID-19 infections. This study is aimed to analyze and compare the current status and problems of COVID-19 diagnosis and various alternative diagnostic methods that are viable. The enrolled subjects in our study population were tested with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). ELISA and immunochromatographic diagnostic kit were used to diagnose 362 positive and 3010 negative SARS-CoV-2 specimens, and antigen fluorescence immunoassay kit was used on 62 positive and 70 negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed samples for diagnosis. As a result, categorizing by the patient symptom onset days, PCL COVID19 Total Ab EIA (ELISA) showed the sensitivity of 93.4% from 15 to 21 days, 94.2% from over 22 days, and the specificity of 99.97%. PCL COVID19 IgG/IgM Rapid Gold (ICA) had a sensitivity of 86.9%, 97.4%, and the specificity of 98.14% respectively. PCL COVID19 Ag Rapid FIA sensitivity was 93.8% from 0 to 7 days, 71.4% from 8 to 12 days and specificity was 98.57%. In conclusion, COVID-19 Ab ELISA and ICA, and COVID-19 Ag FIA are all complementary and applicable diagnostic methods to resolve the current problems of COVID-19 diagnosis.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 97%
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 96%
- Evaluation of seven different rapid methods for nucleic acid detection of SARS-COV-2 virus 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 98%
- The evaluation of a novel digital immunochromatographic assay with silver amplification to detect SARS-CoV-2 97%
- Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): a prospective observational study with 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 97%
- Rapid and simultaneous identification of three mutations by the Novaplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Variants I Assay kit 96%
- Clinical evaluation of the molecular-based BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the BD MAX™ System 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 96%
- Antibodies anti-SARS-CoV2 time-course in patients and vaccinated subjects: an evaluation of the harmonization of two different methods 96%
- Evaluation of VIDAS® diagnostic assay prototypes detecting dengue virus NS1 antigen and anti-dengue virus IgM and IgG antibodies 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Evaluation of Two Rapid Indigenous IgG-ELISA immobilized with ACE-2 Binding Peptides for Detection Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 97%
- Development And Performance Evaluation of A Rapid In-House ELISA for Retrospective Serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2 97%
- Evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 patients in outbreak on a cruise ship 97%
"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.