Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35614181›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Evaluating the performance characteristics of five lateral flow assays for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen.

J Heskin, S J C Pallett, A Al-Hindawi, G W Davies, M Rayment, N Mughal, P Randell, R Jones, L S P Moore

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J HeskinChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK. j.heskin@nhs.net.
S J C PallettCentre of Defence Pathology, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
A Al-HindawiChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
G W DaviesChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
M RaymentChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
N MughalChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
P RandellNorth West London Pathology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.
R JonesChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
L S P MooreChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBRoyal Victoria Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen have been proposed as a complementary option to the more costly and time consuming reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed five commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs (ASSUT EUROPE (Rome, Italy), Besthree (Taizhou, China), Encode (Zhuhai, China), Fortress (Antrim UK), and Hughes Medical (Buckinghamshire, UK), using samples collected from hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 and compared these results against established RT-PCR assays with the aim of estimating test performance characteristics. We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of the five LFAs on 110 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and 75 COVID-19 negative control participants. Assay evaluation was performed using a modified version of each manufacturer's protocol allowing for parallel testing of a single sample on multiple assays. Additional variables were studied including infection acquisition, oxygenation requirements at time of swabbing, and patient outcomes. The 110 patients were 48% (53) female, with mean age 67 years (range 26-100 years), and 77% (85) cases were community onset SARS-CoV-2. Across the five assays, sensitivity ranged from 64 (95% CI 53-73) to 76% (95% CI 65-85); Fortress performed best with sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65-85). Specificity was high across all assays with 4/5 LFAs achieving 100%. LFA sensitivity was not dependant on RT-PCR cycle thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs may complement RT-PCR testing to facilitate early diagnosis and provide community testing strategies for identification of patients with COVID-19, however we find suboptimal test performance characteristics across a range of commercially available manufacturers, below WHO and MHRA pre-set sensitivity performance thresholds. With such variation in sensitivity between LFAs and PCR testing and between assay brands, we advise caution in the deployment of LFAs outside of environments with clinical oversight.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansImmunologic TestsMiddle AgedNucleocapsidPandemicsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID35614181
PMCPMC9130972
OpenAlexW4281480853

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.