Diagnostic Accuracy of Antigen-Based Rapid Test during the Fourth Wave of COVID-19 in Edo State, Nigeria

A.G. Oko-oboh, L. Iruobe, I.I. Osaigbovo, E.D. Obaseki
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Antigen-Based Rapid Test during the Fourth Wave of COVID-19 in Edo State, Nigeria","authors":"A.G. Oko-oboh, L. Iruobe, I.I. Osaigbovo, E.D. Obaseki","doi":"10.4314/jcmphc.v36i1.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Since the use of rapid test kits for diagnosis of COVID-19, diagnostic accuracy has been of concern, particularly in resource- limited settings. This study assessed diagnostic accuracy of Abbot Panbio antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19 using  polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the gold standard in Edo State, Nigeria. \nMethodology: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study during the 4th wave of the pandemic in Edo State from January 5 –  February 4th, 2022. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 240 consenting participants at 10 sample collection  sites. The index test (RDT) and gold standard test (real-time reverse transcription PCR) were performed simultaneously. Sensitivity,  specificity, predictive values, and ROC analysis were conducted on the RDT compared to RT-PCR using SPSS version 26.0 software.   \nResults: Thirty-six (15.0%) participants tested positive on RDT and 34 (14.2%) tested positive on PCR. RDT had a sensitivity of 73.5% (95%  CI: 66.0–81.0) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 91.6-97.8) with a positive predictive value of 69.4% (95% CI: 55.8-80.7), and negative  predictive value of 95.6% (95% CI: 91.8-98.0). The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC for the RDT against PCR was 84.1% (75.1% -  93.1%). \nConclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio rapid antigen test for SARSCoV-2 was below WHO standards. However, they  remain useful tools for continued surveillance of the disease. Rigorous evaluations combining the results of rapid antigen tests with other  clinical information would prove useful for prompt diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 in Nigeria. ","PeriodicalId":504295,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/jcmphc.v36i1.8","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

Background: Since the use of rapid test kits for diagnosis of COVID-19, diagnostic accuracy has been of concern, particularly in resource- limited settings. This study assessed diagnostic accuracy of Abbot Panbio antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19 using  polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the gold standard in Edo State, Nigeria. Methodology: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study during the 4th wave of the pandemic in Edo State from January 5 –  February 4th, 2022. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 240 consenting participants at 10 sample collection  sites. The index test (RDT) and gold standard test (real-time reverse transcription PCR) were performed simultaneously. Sensitivity,  specificity, predictive values, and ROC analysis were conducted on the RDT compared to RT-PCR using SPSS version 26.0 software.   Results: Thirty-six (15.0%) participants tested positive on RDT and 34 (14.2%) tested positive on PCR. RDT had a sensitivity of 73.5% (95%  CI: 66.0–81.0) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 91.6-97.8) with a positive predictive value of 69.4% (95% CI: 55.8-80.7), and negative  predictive value of 95.6% (95% CI: 91.8-98.0). The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC for the RDT against PCR was 84.1% (75.1% -  93.1%). Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio rapid antigen test for SARSCoV-2 was below WHO standards. However, they  remain useful tools for continued surveillance of the disease. Rigorous evaluations combining the results of rapid antigen tests with other  clinical information would prove useful for prompt diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 in Nigeria. 
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
尼日利亚埃多州 COVID-19 第四波期间基于抗原的快速检测的诊断准确性
背景:自使用快速检测试剂盒诊断 COVID-19 以来,诊断准确性一直备受关注,尤其是在资源有限的环境中。本研究以聚合酶链反应(PCR)为金标准,评估了尼日利亚埃多州使用基于抗原的艾博特 Panbio 快速诊断试剂盒(RDT)诊断 COVID-19 的准确性。研究方法:我们在 2022 年 1 月 5 日至 2 月 4 日埃多州第四波大流行期间进行了一项描述性横断面研究。我们在 10 个样本采集点采集了 240 名同意参与者的鼻咽和口咽拭子。同时进行了指标检测(RDT)和金标准检测(实时反转录 PCR)。使用 SPSS 26.0 版软件对 RDT 与 RT-PCR 进行了灵敏度、特异性、预测值和 ROC 分析比较。 结果36(15.0%)名参与者的 RDT 检测结果呈阳性,34(14.2%)名参与者的 PCR 检测结果呈阳性。RDT 的灵敏度为 73.5%(95% CI:66.0-81.0),特异性为 94.7%(95% CI:91.6-97.8),阳性预测值为 69.4%(95% CI:55.8-80.7),阴性预测值为 95.6%(95% CI:91.8-98.0)。相对于 PCR,RDT 的 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)为 84.1%(75.1% - 93.1%)。结论Panbio SARSCoV-2 快速抗原检测的诊断准确性低于世界卫生组织的标准。不过,它们仍然是持续监测该疾病的有用工具。将快速抗原检测结果与其他临床信息相结合进行严格评估,将有助于在尼日利亚对 COVID-19 进行及时诊断和监测。
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
Pharmaceutical Promotions and Compliance with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Prescribing Guidelines by General Practitioners in Mbarara Diagnostic Accuracy of Antigen-Based Rapid Test during the Fourth Wave of COVID-19 in Edo State, Nigeria Intimate Partner Violence among Mothers of Children with Sickle Cell Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of 2018 Nigeria DHS Data Assessing the Job Satisfaction of Some Physicians in Rwanda and the Associated Factors Identifying Barriers to Utilization of Basic Emergency Obstetric and NewBorn Care Services in Jigawa State, North-western Nigeria: A Qualitative Study
×
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