| Autor: |
Emma C. Tornberg, Alexander Tomlinson, Nicholas T. T. Oshiro, Esraa Derfalie, Rabeka A. Ali, Marcel E. Curlin |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2024 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Diagnostics, Vol 14, Iss 10, p 986 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2075-4418 |
| DOI: |
10.3390/diagnostics14100986 |
| Popis: |
The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed over the course of the pandemic. Not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of new variants. We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven testing modalities. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard. A total of 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive (saliva PCR 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR 0.877 ± 0.075, oropharyngeal PCR 0.849 ± 0.082). Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent (BinaxNOW 0.613 ± 0.110, iHealth 0.627 ± 0.109). Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive (BinaxNOW 0.400 ± 0.111, iHealth brands 0.311 ± 0.105). PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and saliva PCR is significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR but have benefits in convenience and accessibility. Saliva-based PCR testing is a viable alternative to traditional swab-based PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
