Evaluation of three immunochromatographic tests in COVID-19 serologic diagnosis and their clinical usefulness

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pegoraro, Manuela, Militello, Valentina, Salvagno, Gian Luca, Gaino, Stefania, Bassi, Antonella, Caloi, Cecilia, Peretti, Angelo, Bizzego, Silvia, Poletto, Laura, Bovo, Chiara, Lippi, Giuseppe, Lo Cascio, Giuliana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Brief Report
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33078222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-04040-1
Descripción
Sumario: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.

Ejemplares similares