About: Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the hospital

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the hospital Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the hospital
Creator	Ong, David Koeleman, Johannes Lindeboom, Fokke De Man, Stijn
source	Elsevier; Medline; PMC; WHO
abstract	OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between March 17 and April 10, 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS: In the pilot analysis sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogenous ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0-23) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33-77). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34-53) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95-100). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46-73) in patients with at least seven days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47-80) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52-72) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95-100) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68-91) in patients with at least seven days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.
has issue date	2020-06-02(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.028
bibo:pmid	32502646
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	9583176c17831566fc62acf1928cb276900f7a8a
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.028
resource representing a document's title	Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the hospital
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7265854
has PubMed identifier	32502646
schema:publication	Clin Microbiol Infect
resource representing a document's body	covid:9583176c17831566fc62acf1928cb276900f7a8a#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'Clinical Microbiology' named entity 'tests' named entity 'patients' named entity 'PERFORMANCE' named entity 'ENZYME-LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY' »more»

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software