scholarly journals False-Positive Results in Rapid Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2

JAMA ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Gans ◽  
Avi Goldfarb ◽  
Ajay K. Agrawal ◽  
Sonia Sennik ◽  
Janice Stein ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Hoehl ◽  
Barbara Schenk ◽  
Olga Rudych ◽  
Stephan Göttig ◽  
Ivo Foppa ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundRapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 became available recently, offering an opportunity to vastly increase testing capacities. Antigen tests offer lower sensitivity than the gold standard, RT-PCR, but rapid sample-to-answer time. High-frequency testing with an antigen test may offset the lower sensitivity, and testing can be done with at-home collection of samples, offering potential benefit in screening efforts. In this study, we set out to evaluate the practical application of self-performed high-frequency antigen test in a school setting.MethodA total of 711 teachers from 86 schools were enrolled in a seven-week study. After instruction, participants tested themselves every 48 hours at home with a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 (target: nucleocapsid protein) in a self-collected anterior nasal swab. Positive results in the antigen test were confirmed via RT-PCR from the same sample that had been determined to be positive by the study participant. A questionnaire was given to all participants to evaluate whether the test failed to detect infection.Findings10 836 tests from 602 teachers were recorded and analyzed. A total of five confirmed cases of viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was detected by use of the antigen test. One study participant with a SARS-CoV-2 infection was presymptomatic and four were mildly symptomatic at the time of the antigen test. Sixteen false positive antigen tests (0.15% of all tests) were reported, predominantly when the local incidence in the general population was low. In four cases, the study participant reported that a PCR had detected a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the antigen test was negative, indicating a false negative result.InterpretationHigh-frequency, self-performed rapid antigen tests can detect individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore potentially reduce transmissions. Testing may be most beneficial when applied during high local incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and when mild or atypical symptoms are present. To avoid a high rate of false positive results, a test with optimized specificity should be used.FundingThe study was commissioned and funded by the Hessian Ministry of Education and the Hessian Ministry of Integration and Social Affairs.


Author(s):  
Himadri Nath ◽  
Abinash Mallick ◽  
Subrata Roy ◽  
Soumi Sukla ◽  
Keya Basu ◽  
...  

AbstractFive of thirteen Dengue antibody-positive serum samples, dated 2017 (pre-dating the COVID-19 outbreak) produced false-positive results in SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid strip tests. Our results emphasize the importance of NAT and/or virus antigen tests to complement sero-surveillance for definitive diagnosis of COVID-19/Dengue in regions where both viruses are co-endemic.


1974 ◽  
Vol 31 (02) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Kenneth K Wu ◽  
John C Hoak ◽  
Robert W Barnes ◽  
Stuart L Frankel

SummaryIn order to evaluate its daily variability and reliability, impedance phlebography was performed daily or on alternate days on 61 patients with deep vein thrombosis, of whom 47 also had 125I-fibrinogen uptake tests and 22 had radiographic venography. The results showed that impedance phlebography was highly variable and poorly reliable. False positive results were noted in 8 limbs (18%) and false negative results in 3 limbs (7%). Despite its being simple, rapid and noninvasive, its clinical usefulness is doubtful when performed according to the original method.


1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Frahm ◽  
U. Obst

Two recently developed Legionella detection tests, a microbiological-immunological method based on monoclonal antibodies (carried out as a colony-blot assay) and a commercial gene-probe testkit (the EnvironAmp Legionella Kit), are compared with the standard method. The colony-blot assay is faster than the conventional method; the gene-probe test is much faster still and is the most sensitive, but in consequence is at greater risk of false-positive results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document