2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.talo.2023.100187
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analytical sensitivity of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: A case for a robust reference standard

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Manufacturers report LODs ranging from tens to hundreds of TCID50/mL of virus although there are reports suggesting these sensitivities are much lower than the true values. [ 104 ] SERS‐based RAT tests have recently been reported and these approaches have increased the sensitivity by a factor of about 100. [ 105 ] ELISA approaches have also been developed with LODs of about 100 PFU/mL which is about 30 times less sensitive than the SERS approaches developed in the same lab.…”
Section: Gold Nanoparticles In Sars‐cov‐2 Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Manufacturers report LODs ranging from tens to hundreds of TCID50/mL of virus although there are reports suggesting these sensitivities are much lower than the true values. [ 104 ] SERS‐based RAT tests have recently been reported and these approaches have increased the sensitivity by a factor of about 100. [ 105 ] ELISA approaches have also been developed with LODs of about 100 PFU/mL which is about 30 times less sensitive than the SERS approaches developed in the same lab.…”
Section: Gold Nanoparticles In Sars‐cov‐2 Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has raised concerns about potential reductions in sensitivity compared to other variants. The FDA has indicated that RATs may have reduced sensitivity in detecting the Omicron variant, and studies assessing the reliability of RATs for Omicron detection have produced conflicting results, possibly due to the presence of undiagnosed Omicron-infected patients [15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%