ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2021
Differential Performance of CoronaCHEK SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Antibody Assay by Geographic Origin of Samples.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: We assessed the performance of CoronaCHEK lateral flow assay on samples from Uganda and Baltimore to determine the impact of geographic origin on assay performance. Methods: Serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR+ individuals (Uganda: 78 samples from 78 individuals and Baltimore: 266 samples from 38 individuals) and from pre-pandemic individuals (Uganda 1077 and Baltimore 532) were evaluated. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated to identify factors associated with a false-positive test. Results: After first positive PCR in Ugandan samples the sensitivity was: 45% (95% CI 24,68) at 0-7 days; 79% (95%CI 64,91) 8-14 days; and 76% (95%CI 50,93) >15 days. In samples from Baltimore, sensitivity was: 39% (95% CI 30, 49) 0-7 days; 86% (95% CI 79,92) 8-14 days; and 100% (95% CI 89,100) 15 days post positive PCR. The specificity of 96.5% (95% CI 97.5,95.2) in Ugandan samples was significantly lower than samples from Baltimore 99.3% (95% CI 98.1,99.8), p<0.01. In Ugandan samples, individuals with a false positive result were more likely to be male (PR 2.04, 95% CI 1.03,3.69) or individuals who had a fever more than a month prior to sample acquisition (PR 2.87, 95% CI 1.12,7.35). Conclusions: Sensitivity of the CoronaCHEK was similar in samples from Uganda and Baltimore. The specificity was significantly lower in Ugandan samples than in Baltimore samples. False positive results in Ugandan samples appear to correlate with a recent history of a febrile illness, potentially indicative of a cross-reactive immune response in individuals from East Africa.
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.