北塞浦路斯大学快速抗原检测与RT-qPCR诊断SARS-CoV-2的比较研究

IF 0.3 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences Pub Date : 2023-05-06 DOI:10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1082079
E. Güler, Ferdiye Taner, Erdal Şanlidağ, P. Tulay, M. C. Ergoren, B. Baddal, C. Özverel, G. Tuncel, Kaya Süer, T. Şanlıdağ
{"title":"北塞浦路斯大学快速抗原检测与RT-qPCR诊断SARS-CoV-2的比较研究","authors":"E. Güler, Ferdiye Taner, Erdal Şanlidağ, P. Tulay, M. C. Ergoren, B. Baddal, C. Özverel, G. Tuncel, Kaya Süer, T. Şanlıdağ","doi":"10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1082079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: As an alternative to RT-qPCR assays used in the diagnosis SARS-CoV-2, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of Ag-RDTs as a diagnostic method of detecting SARS-CoV-2 positive cases within a given population. \nMethods: In first phase of this investigation, 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For the purposes of this study RT-qPCR was then applied to the same 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples in order to compare the reliability of the two detection methods. In the second phase of this investigation, Ag-RDTs were applied to an additional 75 nasopharyngeal swab samples that were already known to be RT-qPCR positive. \nResults: In the first phase of this investigation, of the 357 samples screened using Ag-RDTs 14 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, in contrast, when RT-qPCR analysis was applied to the same 357 samples no SARS-CoV-2 samples were detected. Therefore, the false antigen positivity was determined to be at 3.9%. In the second phase of this investigation 75 RT-qPCR positive samples were re-evaluated with a rapid antigen test. Twenty-four of the 75 RT-qPCR positive sample were undetected. \nConclusion: Solely relying on rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community could consequently result in infectious individuals remaining in the population. The impact of false negative rapid test results can be reduced by implementing confirmatory RT-qPCR analysis particularly in symptomatic patients.","PeriodicalId":10192,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Rapid Antigen Test to RT-qPCR in Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: A University Experience in Northern Cyprus\",\"authors\":\"E. Güler, Ferdiye Taner, Erdal Şanlidağ, P. Tulay, M. C. Ergoren, B. Baddal, C. Özverel, G. Tuncel, Kaya Süer, T. Şanlıdağ\",\"doi\":\"10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1082079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: As an alternative to RT-qPCR assays used in the diagnosis SARS-CoV-2, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of Ag-RDTs as a diagnostic method of detecting SARS-CoV-2 positive cases within a given population. \\nMethods: In first phase of this investigation, 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For the purposes of this study RT-qPCR was then applied to the same 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples in order to compare the reliability of the two detection methods. In the second phase of this investigation, Ag-RDTs were applied to an additional 75 nasopharyngeal swab samples that were already known to be RT-qPCR positive. \\nResults: In the first phase of this investigation, of the 357 samples screened using Ag-RDTs 14 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, in contrast, when RT-qPCR analysis was applied to the same 357 samples no SARS-CoV-2 samples were detected. Therefore, the false antigen positivity was determined to be at 3.9%. In the second phase of this investigation 75 RT-qPCR positive samples were re-evaluated with a rapid antigen test. Twenty-four of the 75 RT-qPCR positive sample were undetected. \\nConclusion: Solely relying on rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community could consequently result in infectious individuals remaining in the population. The impact of false negative rapid test results can be reduced by implementing confirmatory RT-qPCR analysis particularly in symptomatic patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1082079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1082079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:抗原检测快速诊断试验(ag - rdt)可作为诊断SARS-CoV-2的RT-qPCR方法的替代方法,用于鼻咽拭子标本中SARS-CoV-2的定性检测。本研究的目的是评估ag - rdt作为在特定人群中检测SARS-CoV-2阳性病例的诊断方法的准确性和可靠性。方法:在本研究的第一阶段,使用ag - rdt对357份鼻咽拭子样本进行SARS-CoV-2筛查。为了本研究的目的,RT-qPCR随后应用于相同的357鼻咽拭子样本,以比较两种检测方法的可靠性。在本研究的第二阶段,将ag - rrt应用于另外75个已知为RT-qPCR阳性的鼻咽拭子样本。结果:在本研究的第一阶段,使用ag - rdt筛选的357份样本中,有14份样本呈SARS-CoV-2阳性,相反,当对相同的357份样本应用RT-qPCR分析时,未检测到SARS-CoV-2样本。因此,假抗原阳性确定为3.9%。在本研究的第二阶段,75个RT-qPCR阳性样本用快速抗原检测重新评估。75份RT-qPCR阳性样本中有24份未检出。结论:单纯依靠快速抗原检测检测社区中SARS-CoV-2感染可能导致感染个体残留在人群中。通过实施验证性RT-qPCR分析,特别是在有症状的患者中,可以减少假阴性快速检测结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the Rapid Antigen Test to RT-qPCR in Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: A University Experience in Northern Cyprus
Objective: As an alternative to RT-qPCR assays used in the diagnosis SARS-CoV-2, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are available for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of Ag-RDTs as a diagnostic method of detecting SARS-CoV-2 positive cases within a given population. Methods: In first phase of this investigation, 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using Ag-RDTs. For the purposes of this study RT-qPCR was then applied to the same 357 nasopharyngeal swab samples in order to compare the reliability of the two detection methods. In the second phase of this investigation, Ag-RDTs were applied to an additional 75 nasopharyngeal swab samples that were already known to be RT-qPCR positive. Results: In the first phase of this investigation, of the 357 samples screened using Ag-RDTs 14 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, in contrast, when RT-qPCR analysis was applied to the same 357 samples no SARS-CoV-2 samples were detected. Therefore, the false antigen positivity was determined to be at 3.9%. In the second phase of this investigation 75 RT-qPCR positive samples were re-evaluated with a rapid antigen test. Twenty-four of the 75 RT-qPCR positive sample were undetected. Conclusion: Solely relying on rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community could consequently result in infectious individuals remaining in the population. The impact of false negative rapid test results can be reduced by implementing confirmatory RT-qPCR analysis particularly in symptomatic patients.
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
Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences
Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Presumptive Molecular Interconnections Between COVID-19 And Huntington’s Disease Enhanced Enzyme Inhibitory Effects of the Nanohybrid Eggplant Extract: An Unusual Pharmaceutical Form for Medicinal Plant The Validity and Reliability of the Postpartum Symptom Inventory in Turkish Women The Effect of Sex Education and Counseling Based on the Ex-PLISSIT Model on Sexual Life in Primigravidas Ketogenic Diet Interventions in Inborn Errors of Metabolism: A Review Article
×
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