ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow device sensitivity: a comparison of systematic laboratory assessments with manufacturer-reported sensitivity.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection using lateral flow devices (LFDs) was a key component of the COVID-19 pandemic response; however, LFD performance has shown a high degree of variability. Between August 2020 and July 2023, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), including predecessor organisations, undertook a three-phase SARS-CoV-2 test development and evaluation programme to independently evaluate commercially available SARS-CoV-2 LFDs, incorporating standardised laboratory assessment of test sensitivity. Here we describe results from a comparison of UKHSA laboratory assessment findings with manufacturer-reported LFD sensitivity data. Methods: The UKHSA assessed the sensitivity of LFDs, by laboratory testing of surplus clinical samples from a secondary healthcare setting. These data were compared with manufacturer-reported clinical sensitivity data and analytical sensitivity (limit of detection [LOD; 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID Findings: UKHSA-determined LFD sensitivity ranged from 32 to 83%. Of 86 LFDs assessed, 73 included device sensitivity data in the manufacturers' IFU that claimed clinical sensitivity ≥85%, and 49 claimed clinical sensitivity ≥95%. No evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test sensitivity and UKHSA determined test sensitivity, and no evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test LOD and UKHSA-determined test sensitivity. Interpretation: Laboratory evaluation found no evidence of correlation between manufacturer-reported SARS-CoV-2 LFD sensitivity data and UKHSA laboratory-determined sensitivity, supporting previous reports of discrepancies. Our findings suggest that manufacturer-reported performance data and claims for SARS-CoV-2 LFDs should be interpreted with caution and support the need for independent monitoring and testing, and standardisation of analysis methodologies. Funding: This study was funded by UK Department of Health and Social Care; UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England and the National Health Service Test and Trace); and the University of Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
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.