Background Lateral flow device (LFD) viral antigen immunoassays have been developed around the world as diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. They have been proposed to deliver an infrastructure-light, cost-economical solution giving results within half an hour. Methods LFDs were initially reviewed by a Department of Health and Social Care team, part of the UK government, from which 64 were selected for further evaluation from 1st August to 15th December 2020. Standardised laboratory evaluations, and for those that met the published criteria, field testing in the Falcon-C19 research study and UK pilots were performed (UK COVID-19 testing centres, hospital, schools, armed forces). Findings 4/64 LFDs so far have desirable performance characteristics (orient Gene, Deepblue, Abbott and Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test). All these LFDs have a viral antigen detection of >90% at 100,000 RNA copies/ml. 8951 Innova LFD tests were performed with a kit failure rate of 5.6% (502/8951, 95% CI: 5.1–6.1), false positive rate of 0.32% (22/6954, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). Viral antigen detection/sensitivity across the sampling cohort when performed by laboratory scientists was 78.8% (156/198, 95% CI 72.4–84.3). Interpretation Our results suggest LFDs have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals. The Innova LFD shows good viral antigen detection/sensitivity with excellent specificity, although kit failure rates and the impact of training are potential issues. These results support the expanded evaluation of LFDs, and assessment of greater access to testing on COVID-19 transmission. Funding Department of Health and Social Care. University of Oxford. Public Health England Porton Down, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute of Health Research.
Background Several biophysical and biochemical tests have been proposed to predict stillbirth but their predictive ability remains unclear.Objective To assess the accuracy of tests performed during the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy to predict stillbirth in unselected women with singleton, structurally and chromosomally normal fetuses through use of formal methods for systematic reviews and meta-analytic techniques.Search strategy Electronic databases, bibliographies and conference proceedings.Selection criteria Observational studies that evaluated the predictive accuracy for stillbirth of tests performed during the first two trimesters of pregnancy.Data collection and analysis Two reviewers selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves, pooled sensitivities, specificities and likelihood ratios (LRs) were generated. Data were synthesised separately for stillbirth as a sole category and for specific stillbirth categories.Main results Seventy-one studies, evaluating 16 single and five combined tests, met the inclusion criteria. A uterine artery pulsatility index >90th centile during the second trimester and low levels of pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) during the first trimester had a moderate to high predictive accuracy for stillbirth related to placental abruption, small-for-gestational-age or pre-eclampsia (positive and negative LRs from 6.3 to 14.1, and from 0.1 to 0.4, respectively). All biophysical and biochemical tests assessed had a low predictive accuracy for stillbirth as a sole category.Conclusions Currently, there is no clinically useful first-trimester or second-trimester test to predict stillbirth as a sole category. Uterine artery pulsatility index and maternal serum PAPP-A levels appeared to be good predictors of stillbirth related to placental dysfunction disorders.Keywords Biomarker, meta-analysis, prediction, stillbirth, systematic review, test.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.