Background Lateral flow device (LFD) viral antigen immunoassays have been developed around the world as diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. They have been proposed to deliver an infrastructure-light, cost-economical solution giving results within half an hour. Methods LFDs were initially reviewed by a Department of Health and Social Care team, part of the UK government, from which 64 were selected for further evaluation from 1st August to 15th December 2020. Standardised laboratory evaluations, and for those that met the published criteria, field testing in the Falcon-C19 research study and UK pilots were performed (UK COVID-19 testing centres, hospital, schools, armed forces). Findings 4/64 LFDs so far have desirable performance characteristics (orient Gene, Deepblue, Abbott and Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test). All these LFDs have a viral antigen detection of >90% at 100,000 RNA copies/ml. 8951 Innova LFD tests were performed with a kit failure rate of 5.6% (502/8951, 95% CI: 5.1–6.1), false positive rate of 0.32% (22/6954, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). Viral antigen detection/sensitivity across the sampling cohort when performed by laboratory scientists was 78.8% (156/198, 95% CI 72.4–84.3). Interpretation Our results suggest LFDs have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals. The Innova LFD shows good viral antigen detection/sensitivity with excellent specificity, although kit failure rates and the impact of training are potential issues. These results support the expanded evaluation of LFDs, and assessment of greater access to testing on COVID-19 transmission. Funding Department of Health and Social Care. University of Oxford. Public Health England Porton Down, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute of Health Research.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in research activity while restricting data collection methods, leading to a rise in survey-based studies. Anecdotal evidence suggests this increase in neurosurgical survey dissemination has led to a phenomenon of survey fatigue, characterized by decreased response rates and reducing the quality of data. This paper aims to analyze the effect of COVID-19 on neurosurgery surveys and their response rates, and suggest strategies for improving survey data collection.Methods: A search was conducted on March 20, 2021, on Medline and EMBASE. This included the terms “neurosurgery,” “cranial surgery,” “spine surgery,” and “survey” and identified surveys written in English, on a neurosurgical topic, distributed to neurosurgeons, trainees, and medical students. Results were screened by two authors according to these inclusion criteria, and included articles were used for data extraction, univariable, and bivariable analysis with Fisher's exact-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Spearman's correlation.Results: We included 255 articles in our analysis, 32.3% of which were published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys had an average of 25.6 (95% CI = 22.5–28.8) questions and were mostly multiple choice (78.8%). They were disseminated primarily by email (75.3%, 95% CI = 70.0–80.6%) and there was a significant increase in dissemination via social media during the pandemic (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.30–12.0). COVID-19 surveys were distributed to more geographical regions than pre-pandemic surveys (2.1 vs. 1.5, P = 0.01) and had higher total responses (247.0 vs. 206.4, P = 0.01), but lower response rates (34.5 vs. 51.0%, P < 0.001) than pre-COVID-19 surveys.Conclusion: The rise in neurosurgical survey distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to survey fatigue, reduced response rates, and data collection quality. We advocate for population targeting to avoid over-researching, collaboration between research teams to minimize duplicate surveys, and communication with respondents to convey study importance, and we suggest further strategies to improve response rates in neurosurgery survey data collection.

No abstract

pproximately 5 million essential neurosurgical cases are unmet each year, all in low- and middle-income countries (1). After the LancetCommission on Global Surgery described the absence of global surgery from global health discourse in January 2014 (2), the field of neurosurgery quickly recognized the importance of increasing equity in care globally (3-5). Although existing initiatives in globalneurosurgery have focused on neurosurgeons and trainees, medical students represent a promising group for sustainable long-termengagement. We characterize why medical students are fundamental to success, outline the importance of incorporating medicalstudents, and delineate how to increase medical student interest and participation in global neurosurgery.

Background Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed. Methods We validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes. Results Overall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively. Conclusion We conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.