Products > Dodgy Technology

Mostly dodgy: SARS-Cov-2 rapid tests

(1/5) > >>

Haenk:
https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/evaluierung-sensitivitaet-sars-cov-2-antigentests.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=71

German Paul Ehrlich Institut (document german / english)

You better crosscheck your rapid tests, a lot of them are utter rubbish, with a detection rate close to "useless".
I will have to dump a bunch of my tests (pointless to use non-working tests), but already ordered much better ones.

jonovid:

--- Quote from: Haenk on January 13, 2022, 02:50:15 pm ---https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/evaluierung-sensitivitaet-sars-cov-2-antigentests.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=71

German Paul Ehrlich Institut (document german / english)

You better crosscheck your rapid tests, a lot of them are utter rubbish, with a detection rate close to "useless".
I will have to dump a bunch of my tests (pointless to use non-working tests), but already ordered much better ones.

--- End quote ---
I would add to that rubbish , odd statistics & most news media

SiliconWizard:
Your link gives me this: "Bad Request The server detected a syntax error in your request."
Have they maybe made it unaccessible since you posted it? ::)

nali:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 13, 2022, 05:53:42 pm ---Your link gives me this: "Bad Request The server detected a syntax error in your request."
Have they maybe made it unaccessible since you posted it? ::)

--- End quote ---

Did the same for me an hour earlier but seems to be OK now. Maybe they've just been flooded with requests.

thm_w:

--- Quote ---Pools are random mixtures obtained from up to 10 samples of comparable Cq values diluted 1:10 in negative samples in PBS (Cq = Quantification cycle; also reported as CT = cycle threshold). The Cq
values of a pool were determined by means of different PCR assays, and the putative number of RNA copies calculated with the aid of the INSTAND standard. In the case of the PCRs used, a Cq value of 25 corresponds to around 106 RNA copies/mL. The replication of the virus in cell culture as another characteristic of the samples was determined as a possible correlate for infectiousness
--- End quote ---

If you look at the results for Cq <25, almost all of the rapid tests are very good (>90%).
But Cq25-30 performance degrades.

So the question is, is <25 Cq still reasonable threshold to use?


As far as I can tell the author disagrees with the conclusion that you have made:


--- Quote ---This comparative evaluation of a large number of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (point of care tests; POCT) of different designs and manufacturers using the uniform sample sets allows an overview of the current state of the art regarding sensitivity. The current state of the art was defined as corresponding to a minimal sensitivity of 75% for the pools with Cq ≤25. The results do not allow any conclusions regarding specificity of the tests.
--- End quote ---

I also don't see a mention of false positives, although that would be less of an issue.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version