English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and specificity of 4 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method and further characterizing samples using droplet digital quantitative PCR (ddPCR) and a mass spectrometric antigen test. Methods Three hundred fifty (150 negative and 200 RT-qPCR positive) residual PBS samples were tested for antigen using the BD Veritor lateral flow (LF), ACON LF, ACON fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and LumiraDx FIA. ddPCR was performed on RT-qPCR–positive samples to quantitate the viral load in copies/mL applied to each Ag RDT. Mass spectrometric antigen testing was performed on PBS samples to obtain a set of RT-qPCR–positive, antigen-positive samples for further analysis. Results All Ag RDTs had nearly 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR. Overall analytical sensitivity varied from 66.5% to 88.3%. All methods detected antigen in samples with viral load &amp;gt;1 500 000 copies/mL RNA, and detected ≥75% of samples with viral load of 500 000 to 1 500 000 copies/mL. The BD Veritor LF detected only 25% of samples with viral load between 50 000 to 500 000 copies/mL, compared to 75% for the ACON LF device and &amp;gt;80% for LumiraDx and ACON FIA. The ACON FIA detected significantly more samples with viral load &amp;lt;50 000 copies/mL compared to the BD Veritor. Among samples with detectable antigen and viral load &amp;lt;50 000 copies/mL, sensitivity of the Ag RDT varied between 13.0% (BD Veritor) and 78.3% (ACON FIA). Conclusions Ag RDTs differ significantly in analytical sensitivity, particularly at viral load &amp;lt;500 000 copies/mL.

clinical chemistry

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Four Point of Care Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR, Quantitative Droplet Digital PCR, and a Mass Spectrometric Antigen Assay as Comparator Methods