• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Clin Lab Anal . The sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 rapid anti-gene test in comparison to RT-PCR test as a gold standard test

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Lab Anal


. 2023 Feb 1;e24844.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.24844. Online ahead of print.
The sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 rapid anti-gene test in comparison to RT-PCR test as a gold standard test


Oday Taher Mohammed Al-Hashimi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Waleed Ibraheem Ali Al-Ansari[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Safia Abdullkareem Abbas[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Dalal Saad Jumaa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shams Ahmed Hammad[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Faten Abdulghani Hammoudi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ali Abdulmajid Dyab Allawi[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a modern infectious disease, first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The etiology is via severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in a pandemic manner. The study aimed to compare between RT-PCR and rapid anti-gene tests for COVID-19 with regard to sensitivity and specificity.
Methods: This is a cohort hospital-based study done during the period of July to September 2020. Both rapid anti-gene test kit (SARS-CoV-2) and RT-qPCR were used for the detection of COVID-19 in suspected cases.
Results: A total of 148 cases were tested using both the RT-qPCR and rapid test. Twenty-nine (19.6%) of these cases had positive results for RT-qPCR and 119 (80.4%) were negative, whereas 52 (35.1%) patients were positive to rapid anti-gene test and 96 (64.9%) of them negative. The sensitivity of the rapid test was 37.9%, the specificity was 65.5% and the accuracy was 64.44%. Rapid IgG test was positive in 47 (31.8) of cases. Although, rapid IgM test was positive in 18 (12.2%). The rapid IgG test was more sensitive than rapid IgM (Sensitivity 34.48% vs. 3.45%), but it was less specific than rapid IgM test (Specificity 68.91% vs. 85.71%).
Conclusion: We cannot consider rapid anti-gene test alone as a diagnostic method for COVID-19. We should also conduct RT-PCR test and other investigations like imaging CT scan of chest to confirm the diagnosis. The rapid IgG test is more sensitive than rapid IgM, but it was less specific.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-qPCR; SARS-CoV-2; rapid anti-gene test.
 
Back
Top Bottom