Abstract
Background While the recommended laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is a molecular based assay, population-based studies to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 usually use serological assays.
Objective To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a rapid diagnostic test for COVID-19 compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR).
Methods We evaluated the sensitivity using a panel of finger prick blood samples from participants >18 years of age that had been tested for COVID-19 by qRT-PCR. For assessing specificity, we used serum samples from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort participants collected in 2012 with no exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
Results The sensitivity of the test was 77.1% (95% CI 66.6 - 85.6), based upon 83 subjects who had tested positive for qRT-PCR at least 10 days before the rapid diagnostic test (RDT). Based upon 100 sera samples, specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 92.9 - 99.8). There was substantial agreement (Kappa score 0.76) between the qRT-PCR results and the RDT.
Interpretation The validation results are well in line with previous assessments of the test, and confirm that it is sufficiently precise for epidemiological studies aimed at monitoring levels and trends of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Observational study
Funding Statement
This work started through the Data Committee created by the State of Rio Grande do Sul government to fight the COVID-19 pandemics. The tests used in the study have been provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Financial support for for data collection was provided by UNIMED Porto Alegre, Instituto Cultural Floresta and Instituto Serrapilheira. None of these funding sources took any part in study conceptualization, data collection, analysis or manuscript preparation, reviewing, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos