Results of three rapid immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) were compared with those obtained with two automated immunoassays for evaluation of their usefulness. One hundred fifty-nine patients and 67 healthy volunteers were included. Different assays demonstrate 41-45% of diagnostic sensitivities and 91-98% of specificities, with substantial agreement (89.3-91.2%), but a high percentage of weak positive results (13-22%) was observed with ICTs. ICTs performances were comparable to those of automated immunoassays. ICTs could have a role as screening approach due to their easy usability. Subjective interpretation, significant rate of uncertain results, uncertainty on viral antigens source are undoubtedly drawbacks.
Evaluation of three immunochromatographic tests in COVID-19 serologic diagnosis and their clinical usefulness
Pegoraro, Manuela;Salvagno, Gian Luca;Gaino, Stefania;Bassi, Antonella;Bizzego, Silvia;Poletto, Laura;Lippi, Giuseppe;Lo Cascio, Giuliana
2021-01-01
Abstract
Results of three rapid immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) were compared with those obtained with two automated immunoassays for evaluation of their usefulness. One hundred fifty-nine patients and 67 healthy volunteers were included. Different assays demonstrate 41-45% of diagnostic sensitivities and 91-98% of specificities, with substantial agreement (89.3-91.2%), but a high percentage of weak positive results (13-22%) was observed with ICTs. ICTs performances were comparable to those of automated immunoassays. ICTs could have a role as screening approach due to their easy usability. Subjective interpretation, significant rate of uncertain results, uncertainty on viral antigens source are undoubtedly drawbacks.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
