{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":{"citationCount":0,"reanalysisCount":0,"viewCount":46,"searchCount":0},"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["30(4)"],"submitter":["de Almeida SM"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) of 4 different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG, or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or the clinical defined test (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively).<h4>Methods</h4>One hundred nineteen serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the following groups: (1) group with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 82; RT-qPCR positive [definite, n = 70] and probable [n = 12]); (2) other diseases (n = 27; other viruses identified [n = 8] and SARS of other etiologies [n = 19]); and (3) healthy control group (n = 10). LFAs of 4 manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and 1-Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., China).<h4>Results</h4>The 4 tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95% CI: 77.26-93.11%), specificity (100%; 90.51-100%), DOR (257; 60-1,008), LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85), LR- (0.13; 0.08-0.23), accuracy (90.76%; 84.06-95.29%), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the different kits. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics but should be used as an additional screening tool."],"journal":["Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre"],"pagination":["385-394"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8339017"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Rapid Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Diagnostic Performance of 4 Commercial Assays."],"pmcid":["PMC8339017"],"pubmed_authors":["Graf ME","Genelhoud G","Spalanzani RN","Moreira FB","Pereira LA","Raboni SM","Rotta I","Dino CLT","de Almeida BMM","Cavalli BM","Sanada B","Bochnia-Bueno L","de Almeida SM","Domino NR","Takahashi GRA","Nogueira MB"],"view_count":["46"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Rapid Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Diagnostic Performance of 4 Commercial Assays.","description":"<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) of 4 different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG, or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or the clinical defined test (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively).<h4>Methods</h4>One hundred nineteen serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the following groups: (1) group with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 82; RT-qPCR positive [definite, n = 70] and probable [n = 12]); (2) other diseases (n = 27; other viruses identified [n = 8] and SARS of other etiologies [n = 19]); and (3) healthy control group (n = 10). LFAs of 4 manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and 1-Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., China).<h4>Results</h4>The 4 tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95% CI: 77.26-93.11%), specificity (100%; 90.51-100%), DOR (257; 60-1,008), LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85), LR- (0.13; 0.08-0.23), accuracy (90.76%; 84.06-95.29%), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the different kits. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics but should be used as an additional screening tool.","dates":{"release":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2021","modification":"2024-11-14T21:32:11.804Z","creation":"2022-02-11T11:26:35.457Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC8339017","cross_references":{"pubmed":["33887722"],"doi":["10.1159/000516776"]}}