Performance of Three Tests for SARS-CoV-2 on a University Campus Estimated Jointly with Bayesian Latent Class Modeling.
Antigens, Viral
/ analysis
Bayes Theorem
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing
Humans
Predictive Value of Tests
Prevalence
Reproducibility of Results
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus
/ immunology
SARS-CoV-2
/ immunology
Saliva
/ virology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Universities
Young Adult
Bayesian statistics
COVID-19
RT-PCR
SARS-CoV-2
epidemiology
molecular diagnostic
public health surveillance
Journal
Microbiology spectrum
ISSN: 2165-0497
Titre abrégé: Microbiol Spectr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101634614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 02 2022
23 02 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
20
1
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
entrez:
19
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been critical in efforts to control its spread. The accuracy of tests for SARS-CoV-2 has been assessed numerous times, usually in reference to a gold standard diagnosis. One major disadvantage of that approach is the possibility of error due to inaccuracy of the gold standard, which is especially problematic for evaluating testing in a real-world surveillance context. We used an alternative approach known as Bayesian latent class modeling (BLCM), which circumvents the need to designate a gold standard by simultaneously estimating the accuracy of multiple tests. We applied this technique to a collection of 1,716 tests of three types applied to 853 individuals on a university campus during a 1-week period in October 2020. We found that reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing of saliva samples performed at a campus facility had higher sensitivity (median, 92.3%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 73.2 to 99.6%) than RT-PCR testing of nasal samples performed at a commercial facility (median, 85.9%; 95% CrI, 54.7 to 99.4%). The reverse was true for specificity, although the specificity of saliva testing was still very high (median, 99.3%; 95% CrI, 98.3 to 99.9%). An antigen test was less sensitive and specific than both of the RT-PCR tests, although the sample sizes with this test were small and the statistical uncertainty was high. These results suggest that RT-PCR testing of saliva samples at a campus facility can be an effective basis for surveillance screening to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a university setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35044220
doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01220-21
pmc: PMC8768831
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0122021Références
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Nov;4(11):817-827
pubmed: 32758453
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 2;73(9):e3127-e3129
pubmed: 33570097
J Med Virol. 2020 Nov;92(11):2312-2313
pubmed: 32383182
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 01;69(5152):1642-1647
pubmed: 33382679
Elife. 2020 Feb 24;9:
pubmed: 32091395
Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):672-675
pubmed: 32296168
Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 05;172(9):577-582
pubmed: 32150748
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0249143
pubmed: 34473726
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021 Jul 19;376(1829):20200268
pubmed: 34053255
Stat Med. 1986 Jan-Feb;5(1):21-7
pubmed: 3961312
JAMA Health Forum. 2021 Oct 1;2(10):e213035
pubmed: 35977169
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Sep;4(9):964-971
pubmed: 32759985
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2116425
pubmed: 34170303
Euro Surveill. 2020 Dec;25(50):
pubmed: 33334398
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 7;12(1):356
pubmed: 33414470
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 17;383(25):2417-2426
pubmed: 33176077
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1283-1286
pubmed: 32857487
BMJ. 2020 May 12;369:m1808
pubmed: 32398230
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Oct 21;58(11):
pubmed: 32817233
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 4;11(1):3134
pubmed: 33542443
JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Oct 1;175(10):e212025
pubmed: 34115094
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 28;18(9):e1003777
pubmed: 34582457
J Med Virol. 2021 Feb;93(2):639-640
pubmed: 32770741
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1381-1389
pubmed: 32822577
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2016818
pubmed: 32735339
J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 17;224(6):976-982
pubmed: 34191025
Science. 2021 Jul 9;373(6551):
pubmed: 34035154
Epidemiol Infect. 2022 Jan 07;150:e21
pubmed: 35068403
Lancet Microbe. 2021 Jul;2(7):e311-e319
pubmed: 33846704
Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Aug 1;190(8):1689-1695
pubmed: 33823529
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Jul 1;181(7):913-921
pubmed: 33821922
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 26;383(22):e120
pubmed: 32997903
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 10;15(12):e0242958
pubmed: 33301459
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Mar 1;181(3):353-360
pubmed: 33449069
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843-1844
pubmed: 32159775
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Apr;3:100014
pubmed: 33871470
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jul;21(7):929-938
pubmed: 33765417
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Apr 20;59(5):
pubmed: 33504593
Sci Adv. 2021 Jan 1;7(1):
pubmed: 33219112
Euro Surveill. 2020 Aug;25(32):
pubmed: 32794447