2021
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248729
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate point-of-care serology tests for COVID-19

Abstract: Background As COVID-19 vaccines become available, screening individuals for prior COVID-19 infection and vaccine response in point-of-care (POC) settings has renewed interest. We prospectively screened at-risk individuals for SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid protein antibodies in a POC setting to determine if it was a feasible method to identify antibody from prior infection. Methods Three EUA-approved lateral flow antibody assays were performed on POC finger-stick blood and compared with serum and a CLIA n… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This Healgen lateral flow assay point‐of‐care test produces a binary result (positive or negative) for SARS‐COV‐2 anti‐spike antibody for both IgG and IgM. Its ability to serve as an accurate point‐of‐care serology test for COVID‐19 has been substantiated [ 10] . It has been tested predominantly among healthcare workers in a real‐world clinical setting, and when compared with a CLIA laboratory‐based serum immunoassay antibody test, it demonstrated 93.2% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity in one study [ 10] .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This Healgen lateral flow assay point‐of‐care test produces a binary result (positive or negative) for SARS‐COV‐2 anti‐spike antibody for both IgG and IgM. Its ability to serve as an accurate point‐of‐care serology test for COVID‐19 has been substantiated [ 10] . It has been tested predominantly among healthcare workers in a real‐world clinical setting, and when compared with a CLIA laboratory‐based serum immunoassay antibody test, it demonstrated 93.2% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity in one study [ 10] .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In practical terms, screening for viral antigens differentiates itself from antibody-targeting serology tests since it does not depend on host antibody accumulation to detectable levels in the second and third week of illness [5]. The interest in screening individuals for COVID-19 infection in point-of-care (POC) settings is concomitant with the wide vaccination against the virus [6]. Although nucleic acid-based tests are considered the golden standard for SARS-CoV-2, they are prone to false-negative or even contradictory results, especially before or at symptom onset [7][8][9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, a cost-effective diagnostic tool would be beneficial for wide community screening. Rapid tests offer comparable outcomes to the laboratory-based tests and can be used when there is a need to identify people with immunity against the virus within a few minutes while having the advantages of being user-friendly, portable, and not requiring expensive instruments[ 10 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%