SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Rapid Tests: Valuable Epidemiological Tools in Challenging Settings

  1. Francesca Saluzzo
  2. Paola Mantegani
  3. Valeria Poletti De Chaurand
  4. Virginia Quaresima
  5. Federica Cugnata
  6. Clelia Di Serio
  7. Aurélien Macé
  8. Margaretha De Vos
  9. Jilian A. Sacks
  10. Daniela Maria Cirillo

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Our study provides a fresh perspective on the possible employment of SARS-CoV-2 LFA antibody tests. We developed an in-depth, large-scale analysis comparing LFA performance to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and evaluating their sensitivity and specificity in identifying COVID-19 patients at different time points from symptom onset.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1128/spectrum.00250-21
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.08.21256893: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIACUC: Ethical approvals: This study was approved by the ethical committee and institutional review board of San Raffaele Research Hospital in Milan, Italy.
    IRB: Ethical approvals: This study was approved by the ethical committee and institutional review board of San Raffaele Research Hospital in Milan, Italy.
    Consent: All patients and healthy controls agreed to the study by signing the informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variableThey were all adults, females and males were equally represented.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.08.21256893v1 on medRxiv