MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.infpip.2025.100496

Медицинская библиотека · Infection prevention in practice · 2025

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care testing methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in community quarantine and isolation settings.

Lam Simon Ching, Su Jing Jing, Tsang Shun Wa, Wong Anna On Na, Pang Vivian Ching Man, Chung Jessie Yuk Seng, Chan Shun, Kwan Rick Yiu Cho, Suen Lorna Kwai Ping

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing has been regarded as the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the sudden surge in cases that overwhelmed the healthcare system in Hong Kong, several point-of-care testing (POCT) methods have been developed for rapid COVID-19 screening. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these methods remains inadequately established. COVID-19-positive patients and negative control subjects were recruited from a community isolation centre and individuals under home quarantine. Four nasal swab samples were collected by trained operators from each subject. Three swab samples were immediately tested using conventional COVID-19 rapid antigen test (RAT), fluorescence-based RAT (Fluorescent-RAT) and POCT quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The fourth swab sample was submitted to a certified laboratory for standard RT-PCR analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of the three rapid testing methods were evaluated against the results obtained from the certified laboratory-based RT-PCR, which served as the reference standard. The performance of the three diagnostic methods was assessed in 186 valid cases, which comprised 86 RT-PCR-confirmed positive cases and 100 negative cases. The participants' age ranged from 3 years to 94 years. The sensitivity of the Fluorescent-RAT (87.21%, 95% confidence interval [CI]:80.15%-94.27%) and the POCT qPCR (84.27%, 95% CI:76.71%-91.83%) was comparable and significantly higher than that of the conventional RAT (51.69%, 95% CI:41.30%-62.07%). All three methods demonstrated high specificity. The RAT and POCT qPCR exhibited 100% specificity (95% CI:100%), and the Fluorescent-RAT showed a specificity of 97.06% (95% CI:93.78%-100%). This study demonstrated that the Fluorescent-RAT and POCT qPCR can serve as reliable alternatives to RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis, offering improved performance compared with the conventional RAT.

Для цитирования: Lam Simon Ching, Su Jing Jing, Tsang Shun Wa, Wong Anna On Na, Pang Vivian Ching Man, Chung Jessie Yuk Seng, Chan Shun, Kwan Rick Yiu Cho, Suen Lorna Kwai Ping. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care testing methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in community quarantine and isolation settings.. Infection prevention in practice. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.infpip.2025.100496.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.