Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11375/26543
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Andrey DO | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cohen P | - |
dc.contributor.author | Meyer B | - |
dc.contributor.author | Torriani G | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yerly S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mazza L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Calame A | - |
dc.contributor.author | Arm-Vernez I | - |
dc.contributor.author | Guessous I | - |
dc.contributor.author | Stringhini S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Roux-Lombard P | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fontao L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Agoritsas T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Stirnemann J | - |
dc.contributor.author | Reny J-L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Siegrist C-A | - |
dc.contributor.author | Eckerle I | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kaiser L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Vuilleumier N | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-09T15:10:06Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-06-09T15:10:06Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020-07-24 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2077-0383 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2077-0383 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11375/26543 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <jats:p>Background: Comparative data of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG serology rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is scarce. We thus performed a head-to-head comparison of three RDTs. Methods: In this unmatched case-control study, blood samples from 41 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 50 negative controls were studied. The diagnostic accuracy of three commercially available COVID-19 RDTs: NTBIO (RDT-A), Orient-Gene (RDT-B), and MEDsan (RDT-C), against both a recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) and Euroimmun IgG ELISA, was assessed. RDT results concordant with the reference methods, and between whole blood and plasma, were established by the Kendall coefficient. Results: COVID-19 cases’ median time from RT-PCR to serology was 22 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13–31 days). Whole-blood IgG detection with RDT-A, -B, and -C showed 0.93, 0.83, and 0.98 concordance with rIFA. Against rIFA, RDT-A sensitivity (SN) was 92% (95% CI: 78–98) and specificity (SP) 100% (95% CI: 91–100), RDT-B showed 87% SN (95% CI: 72–95) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88–100), and RDT-C 100% SN (95% CI: 88–100) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88–100). Against ELISA, SN and SP were above 90% for all three RDTs. Conclusions: RDT-A and RDT-C displayed IgG detection SN and SP above 90% in whole blood. These RDTs could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.</jats:p> | - |
dc.publisher | MDPI AG | - |
dc.rights.uri | 2 | - |
dc.subject | COVID-19 | - |
dc.subject | ELISA | - |
dc.subject | IgM/IgG serology | - |
dc.subject | SARS-CoV-2 | - |
dc.subject | immunofluorescence | - |
dc.subject | rapid test | - |
dc.title | Head-to-Head Accuracy Comparison of Three Commercial COVID-19 IgM/IgG Serology Rapid Tests | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.date.updated | 2021-06-09T15:10:05Z | - |
dc.rights.license | Attribution - CC BY | - |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082369 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Faculty Publications (via McMaster Experts) |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Head-to-Head Accuracy Comparison of Three Commercial COVID-19 IgMIgG Serology Rapid Tests.pdf | Published version | 268.31 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.