Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study

M. Homza, H. Zelena, J. Janosek, H. Tomaskova, E. Jezo, A. Kloudova, J. Mrazek, V. Murinova, R. Madar

. 2021 ; 11 (9) : . [pub] 20210828

Language English Country Switzerland

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21024065

Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21024065
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211013134050.0
007      
ta
008      
211006s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3390/diagnostics11091567 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34573909
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Homza, Miroslav $u Hospital Karvina-Raj, Vydmuchov 399, 734 01 Karvina, Czech Republic $u Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Performance of Seven SARS-CoV-2 Self-Tests Based on Saliva, Anterior Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs Corrected for Infectiousness in Real-Life Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Test Accuracy Study / $c M. Homza, H. Zelena, J. Janosek, H. Tomaskova, E. Jezo, A. Kloudova, J. Mrazek, V. Murinova, R. Madar
520    9_
$a Many studies reported good performance of nasopharyngeal swab-based antigen tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals; however, studies independently evaluating the quality of antigen tests utilizing anterior nasal swabs or saliva swabs are still rare, although such tests are widely used for mass testing. In our study, sensitivities, specificities and predictive values of seven antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (one using nasopharyngeal swabs, two using anterior nasal swabs and four using saliva) were evaluated. In a setting of a high-capacity testing center, nasopharyngeal swabs for quantitative PCR (qPCR) were taken and, at the same time, antigen testing was performed in accordance with manufacturers' instructions for the respective tests. In samples where qPCR and antigen tests yielded different results, virus culture was performed to evaluate the presence of the viable virus. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests were calculated using both qPCR and qPCR corrected for viability as the reference. In addition, calculations were also performed for data categorized according to the cycle threshold and symptomatic status. The test using nasopharyngeal swabs yielded the best results (sensitivity of 80.6% relative to PCR and 91.2% when corrected for viability) while none of the remaining tests (anterior nasal swab or saliva-based tests) came even close to the WHO criteria for overall sensitivity. Hence, we advise caution when using antigen tests with alternative sampling methods without independent validation.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Zelena, Hana $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Janosek, Jaroslav $u Center for Health Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tomaskova, Hana $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jezo, Eduard $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kloudova, Alena $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mrazek, Jakub $u Institute of Public Health Ostrava, Partyzánské náměstí 7, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Murinova, Vera $u Hospital Karvina-Raj, Vydmuchov 399, 734 01 Karvina, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Madar, Rastislav $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00195450 $t Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) $x 2075-4418 $g Roč. 11, č. 9 (2021)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34573909 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20211006 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211013134047 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1708181 $s 1144562
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 11 $c 9 $e 20210828 $i 2075-4418 $m Diagnostics $n Diagnostics $x MED00195450
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211006
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options