Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33206004›Full record

ArticleEmerging microbes & infections2020

A lateral flow immunoassay test performance in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys: a validation study among healthcare workers.

Ronan Garlantézec, Christopher Heslan, Emilie Tadie, Pierre Tattevin, Vincent Thibault, Christophe Paris

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyLetterValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging microbes & infections, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04416308 (COVID 19), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

NCT04416308 nacompletednot on this map

COVID 19 : Seroprevalence Study of Anti SRAS-CoV-2 Antibodies in GHT Employees in Haute Bretagne

TypeinterventionalSponsorRennes University HospitalRan2020 to 2020Enrolled9,453ConditionsCoronavirusArmsNG test, Blood test, Self-questionnary
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Diagnostics in China.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronan GarlantézecCHU de Rennes, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7420-6341
Christopher HeslanCHU de Rennes, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Rennes, France.
Emilie TadieCHU de Rennes, Rennes, France.
Pierre TattevinCHU de Rennes, Univ Rennes, INSERM U1230, Rennes, France.
Vincent ThibaultCHU de Rennes, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Rennes, France.
Christophe ParisCHU de Rennes, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Rennes, France.
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of NG-Test® when used as a finger-prick test on healthcare workers and to compare it to the ELISA Wantai Immunoassay. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive and 59 who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 negative accepted to participate in this study. They were subjected to an NG-Test® finger-prick test and collection of a blood sample on the same day. A second NG-Test® on another finger was performed for the first 30 cases and controls and read blinded to the first. Sera obtained from blood samples were used to perform the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. The interobserver agreement for the NG-Test® test was perfect (kappa coefficient = 100% [98%-100%]). The sensitivity of NG-Test® was estimated to be 85% [71.9%-92.3%] and the specificity 98.3% [95.0%-100.0%]) for both IgG and IgM. The percentage of agreement between the Wantai immunoassay and NG-Test® was 92.73% for IgG (Kappa = 0.85 [0.75-0.95]) and 65.45% (Kappa = 0.42 [0.26-0.58]) for IgM. Our study highlights the need to validate rapid immunoassay tests under real-life conditions. If NG-Test® is used in seroprevalence surveys, we recommend that its diagnostic performance be taken into consideration to obtain a reliable estimation.

Indexed as

AdultAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19FemaleHealth PersonnelHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MMaleMiddle AgedReagent Kits, DiagnosticReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MReagent Kits, DiagnosticCOVID-19immunoassaysrapid testSARS-CoV-2serological test

Identifiers

PMID33206004
PMCPMC7717860
OpenAlexW3102976189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.