Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39739954›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The performance of a lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and semi-autonomous SARS-CoV-2 antisense and sense RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in a prospective cohort pilot study within a Dutch military population.

Inge D Wijnberg, Anton J Soons, Johan G Reimerink, Marit Wiersma, Marie Christine J Plat, Tom van Gool, Gijsbert J Jansen, Cornelis Stijnis, Jack G Koning, Adam Meijer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Inge D WijnbergExpertise Centre, (Micro-) Biology and Infectious Diseases Cluster, Coordination Centre for Expertise on Working Conditions and Health (CEAG), Ministry of Defence, Doorn, NLD.
Anton J SoonsMedical Staff, Royal Netherlands Army, Utrecht, NLD.
Johan G ReimerinkBiotrack, Leeuwarden, NLD.
Marit WiersmaBiotrack, Leeuwarden, NLD.
Marie Christine J PlatExpertise Centre, Force Health Protection Cluster, Coordination Centre for Expertise on Working Conditions and Health (CEAG), Ministry of Defence, Doorn, NLD.
Tom van GoolDepartment of Microbiology/Parasitology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, NLD.
Gijsbert J JansenBiotrack, Leeuwarden, NLD.
Cornelis StijnisDepartment of Internal medicine/Centre of Tropical and Travel Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, NLD.
Jack G Koning400 Medical Battalion, Royal Netherlands Army, Ermelo, NLD.
Adam MeijerNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Laboratory Surveillance, Bilthoven, NLD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, diagnostic testing was not accessible for mildly ill or asymptomatic individuals. Military operational circumstances exclude the usage of reference laboratory tests. For that reason, at the beginning of the pandemic alternative test methods were needed in order to gain insight into the SARS-CoV-2 status of military personnel. The objectives of this study are to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow assay (LFA) in combination with semi-autonomous SARS-CoV-2 antisense and sense genomic RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) could establish disease status in military personnel in a fieldable setting, and to assess how this combination performed and to determine which type of sample performed best. A proof of concept sub-study regarding the SARS-CoV-2 application of the fieldable Biotrack-MED® FISH analyzer, a semi-autonomous multi-sample filter cytometer, preceded this observational prospective cohort pilot study. Dutch military personnel were included in the 26 June 2020-11 May 2021 period. Blood, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and saliva were tested at days 0 and 14. SPSS version 25 descriptive statistics and Cohen's kappa assessed agreement between test methods. Both the sensitivity and specificity of the field tests were calculated with ELISA and PCR as reference. Saliva appeared to be the preferred sample type for FISH, where blood was not useful. FISH analysis and LFA results had a concordance of 42% for testing negative, 30% for recovered from infection, 22% for ongoing-and 58% for acute infection in a reference laboratory lab result outcome (RT-PCR or ELISA respectively). The LFA results on serum and full blood corresponded with the ELISA-obtained results (kappa of 0.61 and 0.63 respectively at day 0 and 0.81 and 0.77 respectively at day 14). LFA (full blood-serum), FISH and RT-PCR on saliva did not reach the 90% sensitivity level advised by WHO, with 64-54, 38 and 71% at day 0 and 80-79, 53 and 24% at day 14 respectively.

Indexed as

COVID-19In Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMilitary PersonnelRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2AdultAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 Serological TestingFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesSalivaSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID39739954
PMCPMC11687928

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.