Performance characteristics of the ID NOW COVID-19 assay: A regional health care system experience

  1. Mohiedean Ghofrani
  2. Mary T. Casas
  3. Robert K. Pelz
  4. Catherine Kroll
  5. Natalie Blum
  6. Scott D. Foster

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

We compared the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 point-of-care test (POCT) with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods to assess the claimed sensitivity and specificity of POCT and to optimize test utilization in our regional health care system.

Methods

Assuming PCR to be the gold standard, we used a convenience sampling of mostly symptomatic COVID-19 suspect hospital patients who had already been tested for internal validation and guideline development purposes by both PCR and POCT to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of POCT with Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

During the study period, 113 paired patient samples met eligibility criteria. The sensitivity of POCT in this population was calculated to be 94.1% [CI 71.31-99.85%] and the specificity was 99.0% [CI 94.33-99.97%].

Conclusions

Based on the lower sensitivity of POCT and the estimated prevalence of COVID-19 in our symptomatic and asymptomatic hospital patients, we recommend a two-pronged testing approach in which COVID-19 suspect patients are tested by the more sensitive PCR, while asymptomatic patients with a low pre-test probability of infection are tested with POCT supplemented by PCR confirmation of positive results. Furthermore, isolation decisions should not be based on POCT results alone.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.03.20116327: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by our system institutional review board and conducted within our health care system composed of 10 hospitals of various sizes and numerous clinics serving suburban and rural communities in three states.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.03.20116327v1 on medRxiv