Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR.Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity.Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p = 0.003).In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing. 

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing

Abstract Background: In resource-poor countries, antigen-based rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) performed at primary healthcare and community settings improved access to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the technical skills and biosafety requirements inherent to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (OP) specimens limit the scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing. The collection of nasal-swabs is programmatically viable, but its performance has not been evaluated in resource-poor settings. Methods: We first evaluated the performance of SteriPack self-collected nasal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time PCR in 1498 consecutively enrolled patients with suspected infection. Next, we evaluated the clinical performance of three nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs against real-time PCR on OP specimens. Results: The sensitivity of nasal swabs was 80.6% [95% CI: 75.3–85.2%] compared to OP specimens. There was a good correlation (r = 0.58; p < 0.0001) between Ct values of 213 positive cases obtained using nasal and OP swabs. Our findings show sensitivities of 79.7% [95% CI: 73.3–85.1%] for Panbio COVID-19 Ag-RDT, 59.6% [95% CI: 55.2–63.8%] for COVIOS Ag-RDT, and 78.0% [95% CI: 73.5–82.0%] for the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Conclusions: In our setting, the COVIOS Ag-RDT did not meet WHO requirements. Nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 detection constitute a viable and accurate diagnostic option in resource-poor settings.

/pdf/clinical-performance-of-self-collected-nasal-swabs-and-nf7xptl7.pdf

Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Nasal Swabs and Antigen Rapid Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Resource-Poor Settings

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the reliance on antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Their evaluation at point of use is a priority. Methods: Here, we report a multi-centre evaluation of the analytical sensitivity, specificity, and clinical accuracy of the Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT by comparing to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results from individuals with and without COVID-19 symptoms. Participants had attended hospitals in Merseyside, hospital and ambulance services in Yorkshire, and drive-through testing facilities in Northumberland, UK. Results: The limit of detection of the Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT was 5.0 x 10 2 pfu/ml in swab matrix with no cross-reactivity and interference for any other pathogens tested. A total of 347 participants were enrolled from 26 th of November 2020 to 15 th of February 2021 with 39.2% (CI 34.0-44.6) testing RT-qPCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Mologic Ag-RDT compared to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR were 85.0% (95% CI 78.3-90.2) and 97.8% (95.0-99.3), respectively. Sensitivity was stratified by RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) and 98.4% (91.3-100) of samples with a Ct less than 20 and 93.2% (86.5-97.2) of samples with a Ct less than 25 were detected using the Ag-RDT. Clinical accuracy was stratified by sampling strategy, swab type and clinical presentation. Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT demonstrated highest sensitivity with nose/throat swabs compared with throat or nose swabs alone; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Overall, the Mologic test had high diagnostic accuracy across multiple different settings, different demographics, and on self-collected swab specimens. These findings suggest the Mologic rapid antigen test may be deployed effectively across a range of use settings.

/pdf/accuracy-of-the-mologic-covid-19-rapid-antigen-test-a-zmp8prubzp.pdf

Accuracy of the Mologic COVID-19 rapid antigen test: a prospective multi-centre analytical and clinical evaluation

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the reliance on antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Their evaluation at point of use is a priority. Methods: Here, we report a multi-centre evaluation of the analytical sensitivity, specificity, and clinical accuracy of the Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT by comparing to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results from individuals with and without COVID-19 symptoms. Participants had attended hospitals in Merseyside, hospital and ambulance services in Yorkshire, and drive-through testing facilities in Northumberland, UK. Results: The limit of detection of the Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT was 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml in swab matrix with no cross-reactivity and interference for any other pathogens tested. A total of 347 participants were enrolled from 26th of November 2020 to 15th of February 2021 with 39.2% (CI 34.0-44.6) testing RT-qPCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Mologic Ag-RDT compared to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR were 85.0% (95% CI 78.3-90.2) and 97.8% (95.0-99.3), respectively. Sensitivity was stratified by RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) and 98.4% (91.3-100) of samples with a Ct less than 20 and 93.2% (86.5-97.2) of samples with a Ct less than 25 were detected using the Ag-RDT. Clinical accuracy was stratified by sampling strategy, swab type and clinical presentation. Mologic COVID-19 Ag-RDT demonstrated highest sensitivity with nose/throat swabs compared with throat or nose swabs alone; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Overall, the Mologic test had high diagnostic accuracy across multiple different settings, different demographics, and on self-collected swab specimens. These findings suggest the Mologic rapid antigen test may be deployed effectively across a range of use settings.

Accuracy of the Mologic COVID-19 rapid antigen test: a prospective multi-centre analytical and clinical evaluation

Objective: The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults. Introduction: Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR. Inclusion criteria: Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR–based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed. Methods: The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers. Results: Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method. Conclusions: Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche’s SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott’s BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020224250 

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Gemma Walker

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Accuracy of the Mologic COVID-19 rapid antigen test: a prospective multi-centre analytical and clinical evaluation