Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32941461›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2020

Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests on capillary whole blood samples from the fingertip.

Thierry Prazuck, Mathilda Colin, Susanna Giachè, Camélia Gubavu, Aymeric Seve, Vincent Rzepecki, Marie Chevereau-Choquet, Catherine Kiani, Victor Rodot, Elsa Lionnet and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. New detection method of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies toward a point-of-care biosensor.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Paris/Ile-de-France area.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thierry PrazuckDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Mathilda ColinDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Susanna GiachèDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Camélia GubavuDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Aymeric SeveDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Vincent RzepeckiDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Marie Chevereau-ChoquetDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Catherine KianiDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Victor RodotDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Elsa LionnetDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Laura CourtellemontDepartment of Virology, CHR Orleans, Orléans, France.
Jérôme GuinardDepartment of Virology, CHR Orleans, Orléans, France.
Gilles PialouxDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Laurent HocquelouxDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Centre hospitalier régional d'Orléans · FRHôpital Tenon · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2) is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the performance of two POC tests, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction).

methodsRT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Capillary whole blood (CWB) samples from the fingertip taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with POC tests. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated.

resultsAmong 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with POC tests were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both POC tests. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n = 238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days).

conclusionCOVID-PRESTO® and DUO® POC tests turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with CWB sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAdultAgedAntibodies, ViralAntibody SpecificityBetacoronavirusCapillariesClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingCOVID-19 VaccinesFingersHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin GAntibodies, ViralCovid-19 aAPC vaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID32941461
PMCPMC7498027
OpenAlexW3084659863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.