Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessment of a serological diagnostic kit of sars-cov-2 availble in Iran
hamid reza shamsollahi; Mostafa Amini; Shaban Alizadeh; Saharnaz Nedjat; Ali Akbari-Sari; Mehdi Rezaei; Seyed Farshad Allameh; Akbar Fotouhi; Masud Yunesian.
Affiliation
  • hamid reza shamsollahi; Tehran university of medical sciences
  • Mostafa Amini; Tehran university of medical sciences
  • Shaban Alizadeh; Tehran university of medical sciences
  • Saharnaz Nedjat; Tehran university of medical sciences
  • Ali Akbari-Sari; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
  • Mehdi Rezaei; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
  • Seyed Farshad Allameh; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
  • Akbar Fotouhi; Tehran University of Medical Sciences
  • Masud Yunesian; Tehran university of medical sciences
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20090209
Journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 epidemic broke out in December 2019 and now is characterized as a pandemic. The effective control of this infectious disease requires access to diagnostic techniques, both for case finding and epidemic size estimation. The molecular technique is routinely being used worldwide. Although it is the "standard" case detection and management method, it has its own shortcomings. Thus, some easy-to-use rapid serological tests were developed. MethodsOne hundred and fourteen positive RT-PCR-diagnosed patients were tested by VivaDiag Kit, a brand of rapid serological kits available in hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran. Frozen serum specimens taken from healthy people in summer and autumn 2019, were also tested as negative controls. ResultsThe test sensitivity was 47.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.8-56.9) for IgM and 47.0% (95% CI 38.0-56.0) for IgG. There was no difference between IgG and IgM seropositivity except in one case. Specificity was calculated as 99.0% (95% CI 96.4-99.9) for IgM and of 100.0% (95% CI 0.98.2-100.0) for IgG. Sensitivity was higher in men and older participants. ConclusionThis test can be used for epidemiological investigations especially for the estimation of the level of infection in the community, after it is properly corrected for sensitivity and specificity. The low sensitivity could be attributed to the technical limitation of the kits or low levels of antibodies after infection. The different sensitivity in age and sex groups supports the hypothesis that different people show different immune responses to this virus.
License
cc_by
Full text: Available Collection: Preprints Database: medRxiv Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental_studies / Observational study / Rct Language: English Year: 2020 Document type: Preprint
Full text: Available Collection: Preprints Database: medRxiv Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental_studies / Observational study / Rct Language: English Year: 2020 Document type: Preprint
...