Abstract
There are many available rapid antibody tests, but the performance of such tests remains unclear. Moreover, it is difficult to compare among the various devices regarding their sensitivity & specificity.
In order to compare the performance of such devices, we used Cohen’ kappa statistics to assess the level of agreement between RT-PCR and rapid antibody tests. In doing this study, we considered the term of validity after symptom-onset to compare two tests. It takes more than a week to produce antibodies in the body, and RT-PCR thus gives negative result in the convalescent period. On ELISA data from the literature kappa statistics was calculated as 1.0 beyond 10 days after symptom-onset. By taking these factors into consideration, we evaluated agreement with samples collected beyond 10 days of symptom-onset during the active period.
We calculated the data from 9 devices, and the kappa statistics for English data were calculated as 0.64 on average. The same finding was 0.75 for Chinese data. These results corresponded with the values from sensitivity & specificity of their reports. Both reports had no details about the collection procedures. Kappa statistics might become even more accurate, if samples could be restricted to ones collected beyond 10 days. Regarding the data from our hospital’, the kappa statistics was 0.97 when restricted to samples collected beyond 10 days, which thus showed excellent agreement.
By using kappa statistics, the performances of rapid antibody tests can be shown as one figure, so that their comparison becomes easy to carry out.
Highlights
▪ Using kappa statistics, agreement between PCR and ELISA was perfect from the data beyond 10 days of symptom-onset.
▪ The results of kappa statistics corresponded with the values from sensitivity & specificity of the English and the Chinese literatures.
▪ Kappa statistics was calculated as 0.97 from the data beyond 10 days of symptom-onset, and sensitivity & specificity were 95.2% and 100% in our hospital.
▪ Kappa statistics is a convenient means to identify accurate rapid antibody tests.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
because his study is a small trial.
Funding Statement
I had no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board in our hospital accepted this study using the rapid antibody tests in April 17, 2020.
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
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript are included in this published article.
