Selected article for: "rapid detection and SARS rapid detection"

Author: Yokota, Isao; Sakurazawa, Takayo; Sugita, Junichi; Iwasaki, Sumio; Yasuda, Keiko; Yamashita, Naoki; Fujisawa, Shinichi; Nishida, Mutsumi; Konno, Satoshi; Teshima, Takanori
Title: Performance of Qualitative and Quantitative Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Using Saliva
  • Cord-id: 2dylla4h
  • Document date: 2021_8_24
  • ID: 2dylla4h
    Snippet: The rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) can yield results more quickly than PCR. We evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive (17 saliva samples and 17 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS]) and 309 PCR-negative samples. ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity rates of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Nota
    Document: The rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) can yield results more quickly than PCR. We evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive (17 saliva samples and 17 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS]) and 309 PCR-negative samples. ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity rates of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Notably, ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 5 of 6 samples collected within 4 days after symptom onset. CLEIA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 31 (91%) samples, with a positivity of 82% in saliva and 100% in NPS. These results suggest that the use of ICA should be limited to an earlier time after symptom onset and CLEIA is more sensitive and can be used in situations where quick results are required.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • accurate reliable and low sensitivity: 1
    • live virus and low sensitivity: 1
    Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date