使用侧流抗原检测设备对 COVID-19 进行双重检测:快速连续进行第二次检测是否会增加价值?

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Matthias E. Futschik , Sarah A. Tunkel , Elena Turek , David Chapman , Zareen Thorlu-Bangura , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Edward Blandford , Andrew Dodgson , Paul E. Klapper , Malur Sudhanva , Derrick Crook , John Bell , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto , Tom Fowler
{"title":"使用侧流抗原检测设备对 COVID-19 进行双重检测:快速连续进行第二次检测是否会增加价值?","authors":"Matthias E. Futschik ,&nbsp;Sarah A. Tunkel ,&nbsp;Elena Turek ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Zareen Thorlu-Bangura ,&nbsp;Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini ,&nbsp;Edward Blandford ,&nbsp;Andrew Dodgson ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Derrick Crook ,&nbsp;John Bell ,&nbsp;Susan Hopkins ,&nbsp;Tim Peto ,&nbsp;Tom Fowler","doi":"10.1016/j.jviromet.2024.115000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/Objectives</h3><p>We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February–May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (&gt;97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17663,"journal":{"name":"Journal of virological methods","volume":"329 ","pages":"Article 115000"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241/pdfft?md5=d0dfdd5a36c868ec73707eb26179a71a&pid=1-s2.0-S0166093424001241-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double testing with lateral flow antigen test devices for COVID-19: does a second test in quick succession add value?\",\"authors\":\"Matthias E. Futschik ,&nbsp;Sarah A. Tunkel ,&nbsp;Elena Turek ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Zareen Thorlu-Bangura ,&nbsp;Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini ,&nbsp;Edward Blandford ,&nbsp;Andrew Dodgson ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Derrick Crook ,&nbsp;John Bell ,&nbsp;Susan Hopkins ,&nbsp;Tim Peto ,&nbsp;Tom Fowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jviromet.2024.115000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background/Objectives</h3><p>We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February–May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (&gt;97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of virological methods\",\"volume\":\"329 \",\"pages\":\"Article 115000\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241/pdfft?md5=d0dfdd5a36c868ec73707eb26179a71a&pid=1-s2.0-S0166093424001241-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of virological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of virological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093424001241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:我们研究了进行两次侧流装置(LFD)检测(LFD2紧接在LFD1之后)能否提高检测严重急性呼吸系统综合征相关冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)抗原的诊断灵敏度或特异性:研究设计:年龄≥16 岁的人到英国社区检测点(2021 年 2 月至 5 月)连续进行两次 LFD 检测,并提供鼻咽样本进行聚合酶链反应 (PCR) 检测。以聚合酶链反应结果作为参考诊断,我们评估了是否可以提高灵敏度(将任何一次低频荧光定量检测的阳性结果计为总检测结果的阳性)或特异性(将低频荧光定量检测2作为确证检测):总共有 2231 名参与者参加了此次检测,其中 159 人(7%)的 PCR 检测结果呈阳性。在同时完成 LFD 检测的 2223 名参与者中,LFD 检测结果与 PCR 检测结果高度一致(>97%)。在研究期间,LFD结果不一致的比例明显下降。联合使用 LFD 的灵敏度为 68.6%,而单独使用任何一种 LFD 的灵敏度均为 67.1%。使用 LFD2 作为确证检验时,特异性从 99.5% 提高到 99.8%。所观察到的灵敏度和特异性的增加并无统计学意义。31次(1.4%)LFD1、19次(0.9%)LFD2和6次(0.3%)LFD联合检测均记录到了虚脱结果:结论:即使是未经训练的用户在没有监督的情况下按照书面说明进行低频发射测试,其重复性也很高。虽然快速连续进行两次同类型的低频荧光检测可略微提高灵敏度或特异性,但在我们的研究中并未发现有统计学意义的显著改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Double testing with lateral flow antigen test devices for COVID-19: does a second test in quick succession add value?

Background/Objectives

We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.

Study Design

Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February–May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test).

Results

Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests.

Conclusions

LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Virological Methods focuses on original, high quality research papers that describe novel and comprehensively tested methods which enhance human, animal, plant, bacterial or environmental virology and prions research and discovery. The methods may include, but not limited to, the study of: Viral components and morphology- Virus isolation, propagation and development of viral vectors- Viral pathogenesis, oncogenesis, vaccines and antivirals- Virus replication, host-pathogen interactions and responses- Virus transmission, prevention, control and treatment- Viral metagenomics and virome- Virus ecology, adaption and evolution- Applied virology such as nanotechnology- Viral diagnosis with novelty and comprehensive evaluation. We seek articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and laboratory protocols that include comprehensive technical details with statistical confirmations that provide validations against current best practice, international standards or quality assurance programs and which advance knowledge in virology leading to improved medical, veterinary or agricultural practices and management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信