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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic utility of antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Pooled it
- From Detection to Protection: Antibodies and Their Crucial Role in Diagnosing and Combatting SARS-CoV-2.Vaccines · 2024Review
- Clinical Characteristics, Diagnosis, and Therapeutics of COVID-19: A Review.Current medical science · 2023Review
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2-Neutralizing Antibody Response and Correlation of Two Serological Assays with Microneutralization.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Successful pandemic management through computer science: a case study of a financial corporation with workers on premises.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- New detection method of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies toward a point-of-care biosensor.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of qualitative and semi-quantitative cut offs for rapid diagnostic lateral flow test in relation to serology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: findings of a prospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Transforming Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Precision Public Health: Open Guidelines for Manufacturers and Users.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- First Results of an External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Molecular, Serological and Antigenic Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Lombardy Region (Northern Italy), 2020-2022.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Micro/nano biomedical devices for point-of-care diagnosis of infectious respiratory diseases.Medicine in novel technology and devices · 2022Review
- 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 · 2022Article
- Design of a population-based longitudinal cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among adults in the San Francisco Bay Area.Annals of epidemiology · 2022Article
- The Complexity of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- MFBCNNC: Momentum factor biogeography convolutional neural network for COVID-19 detection via chest X-ray images.Knowledge-based systems · 2021Article
- Validation of rapid antibody (IgG-IgM) test kit for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Qatar.Journal of public health research · 2021Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19.Future virology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of a new point-of-care quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain test for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.