Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic children in the clinical setting

Background. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used in children despite the lack of data. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio TM -COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in children. Methods. Symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0-16yo had two NPS for both RT-PCR and P-RDT Results. 822 participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR-positive patients, the P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT-positive than negative ones (p<0.001). Sensitivity was 0.91 in specimens with VL>1.0E6 IU/mL (95%CI 0.83-0.99), and decreased to 0.75 (95%CI 0.66-0.83) for specimens >1.0E3 IU/mL. Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI 0.64-0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post-onset of symptoms (DPOS; 95%CI 1.00-1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95%CI 0.23-0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend towards lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children <12 years (0.62 [95%CI 0.45-0.78]) versus ≥12 years (0.80 [95%CI 0.69-0.91]; p=0.09). In asymptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.43 (95%CI 0.26-0.61). Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95%CI 0.99-1.00). Conclusion . The overall respective 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children was below the 80% cut-off recommended by the WHO. We observed a correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs in children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children ≥12yrs.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

10.1101/2020.11.20.20235341 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Alice Berger ◽

Marie Therese Ngo Nsoga ◽

Francisco Javier Perez-Rodriguez ◽

Yasmine Abi Aad ◽

Pascale Sattonnet-Roche ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Tests ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Diagnostic Value ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Ease Of Use ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Test Device ◽

Community Based ◽

Rapid Tests

AbstractBackgroundAntigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs.FindingsBetween October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The Panbio™Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%.InterpretationWe provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.FundingFoundation of Innovative Diagnostics (FIND), Fondation privée des HUG, Pictet Charitable Foundation.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic children in the clinical setting

10.1101/2021.04.15.21255577 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Arnaud L'Huillier ◽

Matthieu Lacour ◽

Debora Sadiku ◽

Mehdi A Gadiri ◽

Loraine De Siebenthal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Infectious Virus ◽

Rapid Test ◽

World Health ◽

Diagnostic Study ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Test Device ◽

Asymptomatic Children ◽

Polymerase Chain ◽

Health Organization ◽

Post Onset

ABSTRACT Importance. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have shown good sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection in adults and are used in children despite the lack data from children. Objective. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the PanbioTM-COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in symptomatic and asymptomatic children against reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). Design. Prospective diagnostic study from 11.2020 to 03.2021 Setting. Single-center Participants. Consecutive symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0-16yo Intervention. Two NPS for both RT-PCR and P-RDT Main outcome. P-RDT sensitivity and specificity Results. Eight-hundred and twenty-two participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR positive patients, the overall P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT positive than negative ones (p<0.001). Sensitivity was 0.87 in specimens with VL>1.0E6 copies/mL (95%CI 0.87-1.00), which is the accepted cut-off for the presence of infectious virus, and decreased to 0.67 (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for specimens >1.0E3 copies/mL. Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI 0.64-0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post onset of symptoms (DPOS; 95%CI 1.00-1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95%CI 0.23-0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend towards lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children <12 years (0.62 [95%CI 0.45-0.78]) versus > 12 years (0.80 [95%CI 0.69-0.91]; p=0.09). VL which was significantly lower in asymptomatic participants than in symptomatic ones (p<0.001). The P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.43 (95%CI 0.26-0.61). Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95%CI 0.99-1.00). Conclusion and relevance. The overall respective 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children was below the 80% cut-off recommended by the World Health Organization. These findings are likely explained by lower VLs in children at the time of diagnosis. As expected, we observed a direct correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs both in symptomatic and asymptomatic children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children >12yrs where sensitivity reached 80%.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0248921 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. e0248921

Author(s):

Alice Berger ◽

Marie Therese Ngo Nsoga ◽

Francisco Javier Perez-Rodriguez ◽

Yasmine Abi Aad ◽

Pascale Sattonnet-Roche ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Diagnostic Value ◽

Ease Of Use ◽

Lower Sensitivity ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Test Device ◽

Community Based ◽

Rapid Tests

Objectives Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals’ characteristics providing best performance. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Results Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1–5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). Conclusions We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Accuracy of CareStart™ Malaria HRP2 and SD Bioline Pf/PAN for Malaria in Febrile Outpatients in Varying Malaria Transmission Settings in Cameroon

Diagnostics ◽

10.3390/diagnostics11091556 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. 1556

Author(s):

Innocent Mbulli Ali ◽

Akindeh Mbuh Nji ◽

Jacob Chefor Bonkum ◽

Marcel Nyuylam Moyeh ◽

Guenang Kenfack Carole ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Malaria Transmission ◽

Diagnostic Tests ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

District Hospital ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Cohen’S Kappa ◽

Cohen's Kappa ◽

Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Catholic Hospital

Background: There was an increase in the number of malaria cases in Cameroon in 2018 that could reflect changes in provider practice, despite effective interventions. In this study, we assessed the diagnostic performance of two malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) for diagnostic confirmation of suspected cases of malaria in public and private health facilities in two malaria transmission settings in Cameroon. Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CareStart pf and SD Bioline Pf/PAN mRDT and compared these parameters by RDT type and transmission setting. Nested PCR and blood film microscopy were used as references. The chi square test was used for independent sample comparisons, while the McNemar’s test was used to test for the dependence of categorical data in paired sample testing. A p < 0.05 was considered significant in all comparisons. The R (v.4.0.2) software was used for analyses. Results: A total of 1126 participants consented for the study in the four sites. The diagnostic accuracy of the CareStart Pf mRDT was 0.93.6% (0.911–0.961) in Yaoundé, 0.930% (0.90–0.960) in Ngounso, 0.84% (0.794–0.891) in St Vincent Catholic Hospital Dschang and 0.407 (0.345–0.468) in Dschang district hospital. For SD Bioline Pf/PAN the accuracy was 0.759 (0.738–0.846) for St Vincent Catholic Hospital Dschang and 0.426 (0.372–0.496) for the Dschang district hospital. The accuracy was slightly lower in each case but not statistically different when PCR was considered as the reference. The likelihood ratios of the positive and negative tests were high in the high transmission settings of Yaoundé (10.99 (6.24–19.35)) and Ngounso (14.40 (7.89–26.28)) compared to the low transmission settings of Dschang (0.71 (0.37–1.37)) and St Vincent Catholic hospital (7.37 (4.32−12.59)). There was a high degree of agreement between the tests in Yaoundé (Cohen’s Kappa: 0.85 ± 0.05 (0.7–0.95)) and Ngounso (Cohen’s Kappa: 0.86 ± 0.05 (0.74, 0.97)) and moderate agreement in St Vincent hospital Dschang (k: 0.58 ± 0.06 (0.44–0.71)) and poor agreement in the District Hospital Dschang (Cohen’s Kappa: −0.11 ± 0.05 (−0.21–0.01)). The diagnostic indicators of the SD Bioline Pf/PAN were slightly better than for CareStart Pf mRDT in St Vincent Catholic hospital Dschang, irrespective of the reference test. Conclusions: Publicly procured malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Cameroon have maintained high accuracy (91–94%) in the clinical diagnosis of malaria in high malaria transmission regions of Cameroon, although they failed to reach WHO standards. We observed an exception in the low transmission region of Dschang, West region, where the accuracy tended to be lower and variable between facilities located in this town. These results underscore the importance of the routine monitoring of the quality and performance of malaria RDTs in diverse settings in malaria endemic areas.

Download Full-text

Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison

10.1101/2021.02.11.21251553 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Bàrbara Baro ◽

Pau Rodo ◽

Dan Ouchi ◽

Antoni E. Bordoy ◽

Emilio N. Saya Amaro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Tests ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Antigen Test ◽

Assay Sensitivity ◽

Predictive Values ◽

Asymptomatic Individuals ◽

Respiratory Specimens

AbstractBackgroundMass testing for early identification and isolation of infectious COVID-19 individuals, irrespective of concurrent symptoms, is an efficacious strategy to reduce disease transmission. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) appear as a potentially suitable tool for mass testing on account of their ease-of-use, fast turnaround time, and low cost. However, benchmark comparisons are scarce, particularly in the context of unexposed asymptomatic individuals.MethodsWe used nasopharyngeal specimens from unexposed asymptomatic individuals to assess five Ag-RDTs: PanBio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test (Abbott), CLINITEST® Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test (Siemens), SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche Diagnostics), SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Lepu Medical), and COVID-19 Coronavirus Rapid Antigen Test Cassette (Surescreen). Samples were collected between December 2020-January 2021 during the third wave of the epidemic in Spain.FindingsThe analysis included 101 specimens with confirmed positive PCR results and 185 with negative PCR. For the overall sample, the performance parameters of Ag-RDTs were as follows: Abbott assay, sensitivity 38·6% (95% CI 29·1–48·8) and specificity 99·5% (97–100%); Siemens, sensitivity 51·5% (41·3–61·6) and specificity 98·4% (95·3–99·6); Roche, sensitivity 43·6% (33·7–53·8) and specificity 96·2% (92·4–98·5); Lepu, sensitivity 45·5% (35·6–55·8) and specificity 89·2% (83·8–93·3%); Surescreen, sensitivity 28·8% (20·2–38·6) and specificity 97·8% (94·5–99·4%). For specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) <30 in RT-qPCR, all Ag-RDT achieved a sensitivity of at least 70%, with Siemens, Roche, and Lepu assays showing sensitivities higher than 80%. In models according to population prevalence, all Ag-RDTs will have a NPV >99% and a PPV<50% at 1% prevalence.InterpretationTwo commercial, widely available assays can be used for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing to achieve sensitivity in specimens with a Ct<30 and specificity of at least 80% and 96%, respectively. Estimated negative and positive predictive values suggests the suitability of Ag-RDTs for mass screenings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.FundingBlueberry diagnostics, Fundació Institut d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol, and #YoMeCorono.org crowdfunding campaign.Research in contextEvidence before this studyIn December 2020, we searched on PubMed for articles containing the terms “antigen”, “test” (or Ag-RDT), and “SARS-CoV-2” or “COVID-19” either in the title or the abstract. Our search yielded 79 entries corresponding to articles written in English. Of them, 33 were articles presenting the diagnostic performance of qualitative lateral-flow antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). Four of these articles reported the results of head-to-head comparisons of various Ag-RDTs; in all cases, the number of tests was lower than the recommended for retrospective assessments of diagnostic performance (i.e., minimum of 100 PCR positive and 100 PCR negative). Furthermore, all head-to-head comparisons found in the literature included specimens obtained among individuals with varying disease status (none of which asymptomatic), thus limiting the adequacy of the estimates for an asymptomatic screening strategy.Added value of this studyWe compared for the first time head-to-head five Ag-RDT using a powered set of fresh respiratory specimens PCR-confirmed positive or negative, collected from unexposed asymptomatic individuals during screening campaigns for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sample size was large enough to draw robust conclusions. Our analysis identified four Ag-RDTs (i.e., assays marketed by Abbott, Siemens, Roche, and Surescreen) with specificity higher than 96%. Despite the low sensitivity for the overall sample (range 29% to 51%), the corresponding values for the subset of samples with Ct <30 were higher than 80% for Siemens, Roche, and Lepu assays. The estimated NPV for a screening performed in an area with 1% prevalence would be >99% for all tests, while the PPV would be <50%.Implications of all the available evidenceCurrent data on the diagnostic performance of Ag-RDTs is heterogeneous and precludes benchmark assessments. Furthermore, the screening of asymptomatic populations is currently not considered among the intended uses of Ag-RDT, mostly because of lack of evidence on test performance in samples from unexposed asymptomatic individuals. Our findings add to the current evidence in two ways: first, we provide benchmarking data on Ag-RDTs, assessed head-to-head in a single set of respiratory specimens; second, we provide data on the diagnostic performance of Ag-RDTs in unexposed asymptomatic individuals. Our findings support the idea that Ag-RDTs can be used for mass screening in low prevalence settings and accurately rule out a highly infectious case in such setting.

Download Full-text

Comparative performance study of three Ebola rapid diagnostic tests in Guinea

BMC Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1186/s12879-020-05339-2 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Zelda Moran ◽

William Rodriguez ◽

Doré Ahmadou ◽

Barré Soropogui ◽

N’ Faly Magassouba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Diagnostic Tests ◽

High Viral Load ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Local Health ◽

Performance Study ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Effective Response ◽

Ct Value ◽

Panel Test

Abstract Background The 2014/15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa resulted in 11,000 deaths and massive strain on local health systems, and the ongoing outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo has afflicted more than 3000 people. Accurate, rapid Ebola diagnostics suitable for field deployment would enable prompt identification and effective response to future outbreaks, yet remain largely unavailable. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs): an Ebola, an Ebola-Malaria, and a Fever Panel test that includes Ebola, all from a single manufacturer. Methods We evaluated the three RDTs in 109 Ebola-positive and 96 Ebola-negative stored serum samples collected during the outbreak in Guinea in 2014/15, and tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity, specificity, and overall percent agreement were calculated for each RDT using RT-PCR as a reference standard, stratified by Ct value ranges. Results All tests performed with high accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load). The Fever Panel test performed with the highest accuracy, with a sensitivity of 89.9% and specificity of 90.6%. The Ebola and Ebola-Malaria tests performed comparably to each other: sensitivity was 77.1 and 78% respectively, and specificity was 91.7% for the Ebola test and 95.8% for the Ebola-Malaria test. Conclusions This study evaluated the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests for Ebola. The tests may have significant public health relevance, particularly the Fever Panel test, which detects seven pathogens including Ebola. Given limitations to the study resulting from uncertain sample quality, further evaluation is warranted. All tests performed with highest accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load), and the data presented here suggests that these RDTs may be useful for point-of-care diagnosis of cases in the context of an outbreak. Restrictions to their use in non-severe Ebola cases or for longitudinal monitoring, when viral loads are lower, may be appropriate. Highlighting the challenge in developing and evaluating Ebola RDTs, there were concerns regarding sample integrity and reference testing, and there is a need for additional research to validate these assays.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.1101/2021.04.02.21254714 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mina Ebrahimi ◽

Narges Nazari Harmooshi ◽

Fakher Rahim

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Tests ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

False Negative ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Lower Sensitivity ◽

Sample Type ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Asymptomatic Patients

Background: Early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management, becomes the greatest challenge. Despite high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients have false negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both pharyngeal and blood specimens. To be less time-consuming, not seem so costly, and requiring no special training make it more favorable, but the low sensitivity is the main limitation. Several reports indicated rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity especial in asymptomatic patients. Methods: In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, which impose 33 different tests. Results: Our findings showed, type of sample, type of assay, time of sampling, and load of virus influence on sensitivity of RDTs. Conclusion: This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose of infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-764283/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Somayeh Ghasemi ◽

Narges Nazari Harmooshi ◽

Fakher Rahim

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Tests ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

False Negative ◽

Rapid Test ◽

Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽

Lower Sensitivity ◽

Sample Type ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Asymptomatic Patients

Abstract Background: Early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management, becomes the greatest challenge. Despite high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients have false negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both pharyngeal and blood specimens. To be less time-consuming, not seem so costly, and requiring no special training make it more favorable, but the low sensitivity is the main limitation. Several reports indicated rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity especial in asymptomatic patients. Methods: In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, which impose 33 different tests. Results: Our findings showed, type of sample, type of assay, time of sampling, and load of virus influence on sensitivity of RDTs. Conclusion: This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose of infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

Download Full-text