Evaluation of the Panbio™ rapid antigen test for COVID-19 diagnosis in symptomatic health care workers.
Bruins, M. J.; Oliveira dos Santos, C.; Spoelman-Lunsche, M.; van den Bos-Kromhout, M. I.; Debast, S. B.
Show abstract
If a health care workers (HCW) experiences COVID-19 associated symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 testing must be performed as soon as possible, to prevent transmission of the virus and to guarantee continuity of care. The gold standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, RT-PCR, has a high sensitivity but usually takes 6-8 hours. Lateral flow antigen assays take only 15-30 minutes and do not need any high tech equipment. In a prospective study of our hospitals HCWs, we evaluated the sensitivity of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) against the molecular test Aptima SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Hologic) which uses Transcription Mediated Amplification (TMA). TMA positive samples were further subjected to a quantitative real-time SARS-CoV-2 PCR to obtain Ct values as an indication of the viral load. Of 1101 HCWs included in the study between November 2020 and February 2021, 84 (7.6%) were TMA positive, of which 48 (57.1%) were antigen test positive. Most false negative antigen test results occurred if the duration of symptoms had been [≤]1 day or [≥]7 days. Sensitivities for symptom onset of [≤]1, 2 or 3 days were 47.1%, 63.0% and 66.7% respectively. The Panbio rapid test is fast and easy to perform, but is not a suitable SARS-CoV-2 test to confirm or exclude COVID-19 in HCWs with a very recent onset of symptoms.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 96%
- Evaluation of the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen detection rapid diagnostic test among healthcare workers in elderly care 96%
- An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an Emergency Department 95%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 95%
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting 94%
- Diagnostic Performance and Characteristics of Anterior Nasal Collection for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test: A Prospective Study in Japan 93%
- Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris, France: the SEROCOV prospective cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the INDICAID™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in symptomatic populations and asymptomatic community testing 95%
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 94%
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 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 96%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 95%
- Fully automated detection and differentiation of pandemic and endemic coronaviruses (NL63, 229E, HKU1, OC43 and SARS-CoV-2) on the Hologic Panther Fusion 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.