Analytical comparison of over-the-counter multiplex tests for influenza A, influenza B and SARS-CoV-2
Lohsen, S.; Hoy-Schulz, Y.; Taing, A.; Coughlin, B.; Kim, J.; Sullivan, J. A.; Lam, W. A.; Rao, A.; Satola, S. W.; Damhorst, G. L.
Show abstract
Over-the-counter (OTC) lateral flow tests for respiratory viruses have newly emerged since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and are increasingly available to consumers. While all marketed tests have met standards for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), De Novo classification or 510(k) clearance, limited data are available to inform consumers of their relative performance. We performed a head-to-head benchtop analytical assessment of OTC tests available for purchase from retailers in the United States in the fall of 2025. Contrived specimen dilution panels were prepared from propagated viral stocks of influenza A H1N1pdm09, influenza A H3N2, influenza B (Victoria lineage), and SARS-CoV-2 JN.1 (Omicron variant) in clinical matrix and applied to the swab provided with each kit. Tests were subsequently performed according to the manufacturers instructions for use and results were interpreted by two readers blinded to the starting test material. Lower limits at which 3 of 3 replicates of test material were detected were within a 4-fold dilution for all four viruses and all eight OTC tests evaluated. We found that at low viral concentrations many OTC tests were interpreted as negative at the start of the stated interpretation window but converted to a positive result by the end of the interpretation window. We conclude that eight OTC tests that are currently readily available to consumers perform similarly in a contrived specimen analytical study, but we recommend that users of OTC lateral flow tests allow for the full incubation time before concluding that a test is truly negative.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States 97%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 97%
- Estimating the false positive rate of highly automated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical evaluation of the molecular-based BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the BD MAX™ System 96%
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 96%
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 95%
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 96%
- Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 95%
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 95%
"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.