2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.12.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the rapid antigen test Panbio COVID-19 in saliva and nasal swabs in a population-based point-of-care study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
51
2
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
11
51
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Recent articles published in this Journal highlighted the potential of using antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) on saliva samples for massive screening of asymptomatic subjects and epidemiological surveillance [1,2]. Saliva has entered the shortlist of clinical samples to which the current laboratory tests can be applied, due to increasing evidences of comparable sensitivity and specificity with respect to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) [3][4][5][6].…”
Section: Dear Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recent articles published in this Journal highlighted the potential of using antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) on saliva samples for massive screening of asymptomatic subjects and epidemiological surveillance [1,2]. Saliva has entered the shortlist of clinical samples to which the current laboratory tests can be applied, due to increasing evidences of comparable sensitivity and specificity with respect to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) [3][4][5][6].…”
Section: Dear Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this did not represent a major obstacle to achieve same day diagnostic definition, due to the timely organization and information flow. On the other hand, the disadvantage of longer process was overcome by the greater accuracy of a laboratory test compared to a POCT [2,9,10] and the ability to quickly perform the confirmation test with a system compatible with "urgent" execution.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is similar to sampling traditionally performed for PCR tests, and is in agreement with the conclusions of a recent study enrolling 659 patients that employed the Panbio test and showed excellent sensitivity for the combination of saliva and nasal sampling. 21 When combined with the 350 µL of extraction buffer, available from the test kit, the 100 µL extract required for the lateral flow assay was obtained without the need for any additional fluid. When the team test was performed eight times, we obtained a signal intensity of 43 ± 6 % (mean ± one SD) of that for the single swab standard procedure (entry No.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While lower values of cycle threshold seem to link with detecting culturable virus and higher chances of generating secondary cases, 48‐51 careful interpretations of oversimplified modeling assumptions are warranted. Scant independent evaluations from real‐world data, several case reports that present lower sensitivity especially among asymptomatic cases, questionable workability of home‐based approaches because of differences in sampling methods, procurement and deployment of these tools, logistics for registering the data, and negative impacts of rapid testing results on modifying people's behaviors including false sense of security among citizens, breaking chains of COVID‐19, and protecting asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID‐19 patients before their symptoms of onset will be eminent challenges 52‐56 . Discussing the feasibility in each context, summarizing advantages and disadvantages of testing tools for public health purposes, and intervals of mass testing will be vital research topics during COVID‐19 pandemic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%