4.6 Article

Comparison of Antigen Tests and qPCR in Rapid Diagnostics of Infections Caused by SARS-CoV-2 Virus

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14010017

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; laboratory diagnostics; antigen test; NAAT; qPCR

类别

资金

  1. MedSun.pl-a brand of ENTERP Kamil Sterna, ul. Budki Szczesliwickie, Warsaw [EU VAT: PL6842337163, 1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared a selected antigen test with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests results and found that antigen tests have high enough effectiveness to be an alternative and support for nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the rapid laboratory diagnostics of COVID-19.
Diagnostics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using molecular techniques from the collected respiratory swab specimens requires well-equipped laboratory and qualified personnel, also it needs several hours of waiting for results and is expensive. Antigen tests appear to be faster and cheaper but their sensitivity and specificity are debatable. The aim of this study was to compare a selected antigen test with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests results. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 192 patients with COVID-19 symptoms. All samples were tested using Vitassay qPCR SARS-CoV-2 kit and the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (MedSun) antigen immunochromatographic test simultaneously. Ultimately, 189 samples were tested; 3 samples were excluded due to errors in taking swabs. The qPCR and antigen test results were as follows: 47 positive and 142 negative, and 45 positive and 144 negative, respectively. Calculated sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 98.6% for the antigen test shows differences which are not statistically significant in comparison to qPCR. Our study showed that effectiveness of the antigen tests in rapid laboratory diagnostics is high enough to be an alternative and support for nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the virus replication phase in the course of COVID-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据