Analytical Sensitivity of Eight Different SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests for Omicron-BA.1 Variant

  1. Meriem Bekliz
  2. Kenneth Adea
  3. Olha Puhach
  4. Francisco Perez-Rodriguez
  5. Stéfane Marques Melancia
  6. Stephanie Baggio
  7. Anna-Rita Corvaglia
  8. Frederique Jacquerioz
  9. Catia Alvarez
  10. Manel Essaidi-Laziosi
  11. Camille Escadafal
  12. Laurent Kaiser
  13. Isabella Eckerle

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Sensitivity for detecting Omicron-BA.1 shows high heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. Analytical and retrospective testing is a proxy and timely solution to generate rapid performance data, but it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations, which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1128/spectrum.00853-22
  2. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Monika Klimek-Tulwin

    Review 2: "Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests for Omicron variant"

    This preprint evaluates the sensitivity of various antigen-based COVID-19 diagnostic kits and found variable sensitivity for patients infected with the Omicron variant-of-concern. Reviewers deemed this study potentially informative, pointing out limitations with frozen samples.

  3. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Julian Tang

    Review 1: "Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests for Omicron variant"

    This preprint evaluates the sensitivity of various antigen-based COVID-19 diagnostic kits and found variable sensitivity for patients infected with the Omicron variant-of-concern. Reviewers deemed this study potentially informative, pointing out limitations with frozen samples.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.18.21268018v2 on medRxiv
  6. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.18.21268018: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    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.

  7. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.18.21268018v1 on medRxiv