新冠肺炎抗体检测诊断的可靠性

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Marmara Medical Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-31 DOI:10.5472/marumj.1245068
N. Coplu, Ç. Kılınç, Aysegul Gozalan, B. Çalışır, C. Sonmez, Mustafa Muhammet Gul, Zeynep AYGUN AHLATCIOGLU
{"title":"新冠肺炎抗体检测诊断的可靠性","authors":"N. Coplu, Ç. Kılınç, Aysegul Gozalan, B. Çalışır, C. Sonmez, Mustafa Muhammet Gul, Zeynep AYGUN AHLATCIOGLU","doi":"10.5472/marumj.1245068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus \ndisease 2019 (COVID-19), and antibody tests are useful as supplemental tools for diagnosis, for measuring the population’s immunity \nlevels, and for checking infection in asymptomatic contacts. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of five commercial antibody \ndetection test kits. \nMaterials and Methods: The reliability of the Colloidal Gold COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Kit, Antibody Rapid Test Hotgen, \nBeijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd., China), Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (Illinois, USA), Roche \nElectrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland), Siemens Chemiluminescence (Munich, Germany), and \nEuroimmun ELISA (Lübeck, Germany) for COVID-19 diagnosis was studied. The antibody-negative group included 50 sera from \n2018, and the antibody-positive group included 98 patients with positive RT-PCR results from whom blood samples had been collected \n3–9 weeks after hospital discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). \nThe antibody tests’ validity and intra-assay reproducibility were examined, and the Cohen’s kappa coefficients were obtained. The \ndisease prevalence was pegged at 10%. \nResults: The antibody tests’ sensitivity (69.12–72.46%) and positive predictive values (42.44–100.0%) were low, and their specificity \n(89.58–100%) and negative predictive values (96.31–97.03%) were high. Their accuracy rates varied from 87.54% to 97.25%, and their \nintra-assay coefficients of variation varied from 1% to 10%. \nConclusion: The agreement between the results of the antibody detection test kits was higher when the kits were classified according to \nthe targeted antigens. The time of blood sample collection, targeted antigens, and antibody types affected the results. Serological tests \nwere found to be useful, and the commercial kits were found to be largely reliable, although, some parameters need to be improved.","PeriodicalId":43341,"journal":{"name":"Marmara Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of antibody tests for COVID-19 diagnosis\",\"authors\":\"N. Coplu, Ç. Kılınç, Aysegul Gozalan, B. Çalışır, C. Sonmez, Mustafa Muhammet Gul, Zeynep AYGUN AHLATCIOGLU\",\"doi\":\"10.5472/marumj.1245068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus \\ndisease 2019 (COVID-19), and antibody tests are useful as supplemental tools for diagnosis, for measuring the population’s immunity \\nlevels, and for checking infection in asymptomatic contacts. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of five commercial antibody \\ndetection test kits. \\nMaterials and Methods: The reliability of the Colloidal Gold COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Kit, Antibody Rapid Test Hotgen, \\nBeijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd., China), Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (Illinois, USA), Roche \\nElectrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland), Siemens Chemiluminescence (Munich, Germany), and \\nEuroimmun ELISA (Lübeck, Germany) for COVID-19 diagnosis was studied. The antibody-negative group included 50 sera from \\n2018, and the antibody-positive group included 98 patients with positive RT-PCR results from whom blood samples had been collected \\n3–9 weeks after hospital discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). \\nThe antibody tests’ validity and intra-assay reproducibility were examined, and the Cohen’s kappa coefficients were obtained. The \\ndisease prevalence was pegged at 10%. \\nResults: The antibody tests’ sensitivity (69.12–72.46%) and positive predictive values (42.44–100.0%) were low, and their specificity \\n(89.58–100%) and negative predictive values (96.31–97.03%) were high. Their accuracy rates varied from 87.54% to 97.25%, and their \\nintra-assay coefficients of variation varied from 1% to 10%. \\nConclusion: The agreement between the results of the antibody detection test kits was higher when the kits were classified according to \\nthe targeted antigens. The time of blood sample collection, targeted antigens, and antibody types affected the results. Serological tests \\nwere found to be useful, and the commercial kits were found to be largely reliable, although, some parameters need to be improved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marmara Medical Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marmara Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5472/marumj.1245068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marmara Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5472/marumj.1245068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:逆转录-聚合酶链式反应检测(RT-PCR)是诊断2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)的金标准,抗体检测可作为诊断、测量人群免疫水平和检查无症状接触者感染的补充工具。本研究旨在评估五种商业抗体检测试剂盒的可靠性。材料和方法:胶体金新冠肺炎IgG/IgM快速检测试剂盒、抗体快速检测Hotgen、北京Hotgen生物技术有限公司,有限公司,中国)、Abbott化学发光微粒免疫分析法(美国伊利诺伊州)、罗氏电化学发光免疫分析法,和Euroimmun ELISA(德国吕贝克)用于新冠肺炎诊断的研究。抗体阴性组包括2018年的50份血清,抗体阳性组包括98名RT-PCR结果呈阳性的患者,这些患者在出院后3-6周采集了血样。使用SPSS 23.0版(IBM Corporation,Armonk,NY,USA)进行统计分析。检测抗体测试的有效性和批内再现性,并获得Cohen’s kappa系数。疾病的流行率定为10%。结果:抗体检测的敏感性(69.12–72.46%)和阳性预测值(42.44–100.0%)较低,特异性(89.58–100%)和阴性预测值(96.31–97.03%)较高。其准确率在87.54%至97.25%之间,批内变异系数在1%至10%之间。结论:抗体检测试剂盒按靶抗原分类,结果一致性较高。血样采集的时间、靶向抗原和抗体类型会影响结果。血清学检测被发现是有用的,商业试剂盒被发现在很大程度上是可靠的,尽管一些参数需要改进。
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
Reliability of antibody tests for COVID-19 diagnosis
Objective: The reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and antibody tests are useful as supplemental tools for diagnosis, for measuring the population’s immunity levels, and for checking infection in asymptomatic contacts. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of five commercial antibody detection test kits. Materials and Methods: The reliability of the Colloidal Gold COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Kit, Antibody Rapid Test Hotgen, Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd., China), Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (Illinois, USA), Roche Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland), Siemens Chemiluminescence (Munich, Germany), and Euroimmun ELISA (Lübeck, Germany) for COVID-19 diagnosis was studied. The antibody-negative group included 50 sera from 2018, and the antibody-positive group included 98 patients with positive RT-PCR results from whom blood samples had been collected 3–9 weeks after hospital discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The antibody tests’ validity and intra-assay reproducibility were examined, and the Cohen’s kappa coefficients were obtained. The disease prevalence was pegged at 10%. Results: The antibody tests’ sensitivity (69.12–72.46%) and positive predictive values (42.44–100.0%) were low, and their specificity (89.58–100%) and negative predictive values (96.31–97.03%) were high. Their accuracy rates varied from 87.54% to 97.25%, and their intra-assay coefficients of variation varied from 1% to 10%. Conclusion: The agreement between the results of the antibody detection test kits was higher when the kits were classified according to the targeted antigens. The time of blood sample collection, targeted antigens, and antibody types affected the results. Serological tests were found to be useful, and the commercial kits were found to be largely reliable, although, some parameters need to be improved.
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
Marmara Medical Journal
Marmara Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Marmara Medical Journal, Marmara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi tarafından yılda üç kere yayımlanan multidisipliner bir dergidir. Bu dergide tıbbın tüm alanlarına ait orijinal araştırma makaleleri, olgu sunumları ve derlemeler İngilizce veya Türkçe olarak yer alır.
期刊最新文献
The impact of right ventricular energy failure on the results of pulmonary endarterectomy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension Management of staple line leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: Single-center experience Effects of virtual reality usage on kappa angle, accommodation, pupil, depth perception, and examination of the relationship of these parameters with discomfort perception Combined Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty with minimal conchal cartilage excision A case of granulomatosis of polyangiitis presenting with COVID-19 infection: False-positivity or co-existence?
×
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