Diagnostic evaluation of PanBio, and standard Q COVID-19 rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional study from Nepal

Gopal K. Yadav, Praju Karki, Amar Raut, Prativa Subedi, Saurav Aryal, Rama Tamrakar, Binod Paudel, A. D. K. Bastola, Smeena Pradhananga, D. Rohita, Pramod Kafle, Aayush Shrestha, M. P. Oli, Ajay K. Yadav, Sanjeev K. Sharma
{"title":"Diagnostic evaluation of PanBio, and standard Q COVID-19 rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional study from Nepal","authors":"Gopal K. Yadav, Praju Karki, Amar Raut, Prativa Subedi, Saurav Aryal, Rama Tamrakar, Binod Paudel, A. D. K. Bastola, Smeena Pradhananga, D. Rohita, Pramod Kafle, Aayush Shrestha, M. P. Oli, Ajay K. Yadav, Sanjeev K. Sharma","doi":"10.1097/gh9.0000000000000438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was time-consuming and costly, contributing to rampant transmission, particularly in developing countries like Nepal. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs, PanBio and Standard Q) against real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR).\n \n \n \n This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among 1171 suspected COVID-19 patients at a provincial hospital in Nepal. Each participant provided two nasopharyngeal swabs, one for RDT and the other for rRT-PCR, spanning a total duration of four months. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of each RDT, as well as the combined antigen-RDT, were determined in reference to the rRT-PCR status.\n \n \n \n The sensitivity and specificity of PanBio were 60.87% (95% CI: 55.84–65.74) and 98.43% (95% CI: 96.80–99.37), respectively, while that of Standard Q was 59.83% (95% CI: 53.16–66.23) and 96.15% (95% CI: 90.44–98.94), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values of PanBio were 97.14 and 74.20%, respectively, and that of Standard Q were 97.16 and 52.08%. The positive likelihood ratio was higher for PanBio (38.87, 95% CI: 18.56–81.41) than for Standard Q (15.55, 95% CI: 5.92–40.90). Meanwhile, the negative likelihood ratio was more than 0.40 for both RDTs. The accuracy for PanBio, Standard Q, and combined RDTs were 80.91% (95% CI: 78.08–83.52), 71.17% (95% CI: 65.98–75.98), and 78.14% (95% CI: 75.66–80.48), respectively.\n \n \n \n RDTs exhibited unsatisfactory sensitivity and positive predictive value, rendering them ineffective as a screening tool. Nonetheless, they demonstrated excellent specificity and negative predictive value. Hence, a negative test result almost entirely excludes the possibility of infection.\n","PeriodicalId":306111,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgery: Global Health","volume":"31 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgery: Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/gh9.0000000000000438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was time-consuming and costly, contributing to rampant transmission, particularly in developing countries like Nepal. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs, PanBio and Standard Q) against real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among 1171 suspected COVID-19 patients at a provincial hospital in Nepal. Each participant provided two nasopharyngeal swabs, one for RDT and the other for rRT-PCR, spanning a total duration of four months. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of each RDT, as well as the combined antigen-RDT, were determined in reference to the rRT-PCR status. The sensitivity and specificity of PanBio were 60.87% (95% CI: 55.84–65.74) and 98.43% (95% CI: 96.80–99.37), respectively, while that of Standard Q was 59.83% (95% CI: 53.16–66.23) and 96.15% (95% CI: 90.44–98.94), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values of PanBio were 97.14 and 74.20%, respectively, and that of Standard Q were 97.16 and 52.08%. The positive likelihood ratio was higher for PanBio (38.87, 95% CI: 18.56–81.41) than for Standard Q (15.55, 95% CI: 5.92–40.90). Meanwhile, the negative likelihood ratio was more than 0.40 for both RDTs. The accuracy for PanBio, Standard Q, and combined RDTs were 80.91% (95% CI: 78.08–83.52), 71.17% (95% CI: 65.98–75.98), and 78.14% (95% CI: 75.66–80.48), respectively. RDTs exhibited unsatisfactory sensitivity and positive predictive value, rendering them ineffective as a screening tool. Nonetheless, they demonstrated excellent specificity and negative predictive value. Hence, a negative test result almost entirely excludes the possibility of infection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对PanBio和标准Q COVID-19快速抗原测试检测SARS-CoV-2的诊断评估:尼泊尔的一项横断面研究
COVID-19 感染的诊断费时费力,导致传播猖獗,尤其是在尼泊尔等发展中国家。本研究旨在比较两种快速抗原诊断检测(RDT,PanBio 和 Standard Q)与实时逆转录酶 PCR(rRT-PCR)的诊断性能。 这项回顾性横断面研究在尼泊尔一家省级医院的 1171 名疑似 COVID-19 患者中进行。每位参与者都提供了两份鼻咽拭子,一份用于 RDT,另一份用于 rRT-PCR,共持续了四个月。参照 rRT-PCR 检测结果,确定了每种 RDT 以及抗原-RDT 检测组合的敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比 (PLR)、阴性似然比 (NLR)、阳性预测值 (PPV)、阴性预测值 (NPV) 和诊断准确性。 PanBio 的灵敏度和特异性分别为 60.87% (95% CI: 55.84-65.74) 和 98.43% (95% CI: 96.80-99.37),而标准 Q 的灵敏度和特异性分别为 59.83% (95% CI: 53.16-66.23) 和 96.15% (95% CI: 90.44-98.94)。PanBio 的阳性预测值为 97.14%,阴性预测值为 74.20%,标准 Q 的阳性预测值为 97.16%,阴性预测值为 52.08%。PanBio 的阳性似然比(38.87,95% CI:18.56-81.41)高于标准 Q(15.55,95% CI:5.92-40.90)。同时,两种 RDT 的阴性似然比都超过了 0.40。PanBio、标准 Q 和联合 RDT 的准确率分别为 80.91% (95% CI: 78.08-83.52)、71.17% (95% CI: 65.98-75.98) 和 78.14% (95% CI: 75.66-80.48)。 RDT 的灵敏度和阳性预测值不尽人意,因此不能作为筛查工具。然而,它们的特异性和阴性预测值却非常出色。因此,阴性检测结果几乎完全排除了感染的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Undiagnosed Behçet’s disease presenting as Fournier’s gangrene in undiagnosed Behçet’s disease: a case report of a young adult male A comparative study of ultrasonography (USG) and computed tomography for detecting ureteric calculi in patients with acute flank pain, and analysis of factors influencing ultrasound detection rates Statins in breast cancer treatment and management: a mini-review of potential benefits and clinical implications Sicca syndrome post-COVID-19 infection: a case report Outbreak of an emerging zoonoses Nipah virus: an update
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1