Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
plawolf said:
I think that given the nature of the study, the Chinese Covid vaccine trial would have been absolute top priority for the Lancet. So I would expect prioritised editorial time and there would be no question of it waiting for a spot once it was ready for publication. The Lancet would absolutely pull any other piece(s) needed to make this hit the press as soon as possible.

As such, while I agree that there was likely a fair amount of time in the review and editing process, and the study was likely concluded a while back, I just think it’s safe to assume that it would not be anywhere like as long as a normal article would typically take to be published.
Click to expand...

I agree that this study might have been expedited for publishing because of the impact. I also agree that the only part of the whole process that could be sped up would be the waiting part after being accepted for publication. Given the quality of the journal, they would not ease any part of the reviewing process.

Also, I would imagine all the leading virologist experts in the world are busy either reviewing tons of manuscripts submitted for publication or working on their own COVID-19 projects. It would be nearly impossible to ask them to speed up the reviewing process.
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
SteelBird said:
Were they made in China?
Click to expand...

What was tested are the following in collaboration with FDA.
Abbott Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Autobio Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test
Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab
Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test
Chembio Diagnostic Systems DPP Covid-19 IgM/IgG System
DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG
EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA (IgG)
Mount Sinai Hospital Clinical Laboratory COVID-19 ELISA Antibody Test
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Reagent Pack and Calibrator
Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2
Wadsworth New York SARS-CoV Microsphere Immunoassay for Antibody Detection

Apparently, the basis of the report is from CDC antibody test guideline stating,

"In the current pandemic, maximizing specificity and thus positive predictive value in a serologic algorithm is preferred in most instances, since the overall prevalence of antibodies in most populations is likely low. For example, in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies. Alternatively, the same test in a population with an antibody prevalence exceeding 52% will yield a positive predictive greater than 95%, meaning that less than one in 20 people testing positive will have a false positive test result. "
 
Last edited:
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
SteelBird said:
Were they made in China?
Click to expand...
Dolcevita said:
What was tested are the following in collaboration with FDA.
Abbott Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Autobio Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test
Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab
Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test
Chembio Diagnostic Systems DPP Covid-19 IgM/IgG System
DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG
EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA (IgG)
Mount Sinai Hospital Clinical Laboratory COVID-19 ELISA Antibody Test
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Reagent Pack and Calibrator
Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2
Wadsworth New York SARS-CoV Microsphere Immunoassay for Antibody Detection

Apparently, the basis of the report is from CDC antibody test guideline stating,

"In the current pandemic, maximizing specificity and thus positive predictive value in a serologic algorithm is preferred in most instances, since the overall prevalence of antibodies in most populations is likely low. For example, in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies. Alternatively, the same test in a population with an antibody prevalence exceeding 52% will yield a positive predictive greater than 95%, meaning that less than one in 20 people testing positive will have a false positive test result. "
Click to expand...

The title is confusing and misleading.

The bottom line is the accuracy of the tests is still that of "90% sensitivity and 95% specificity"
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
Dolcevita said:
Not Correct. I leave the explanation to in-house scientist.
Click to expand...

My gripe is with the title "US CDC: Coronavirus antibody tests could be wrong 50% of the time and correct 50% of the time. "

It is saying in other words the Coronavirus antibody tests (the test-kits) have a sensitivity of 50% (i.e. 50% true positive and 50% false negative) when in actual fact the test kits have a sensitivity of 90% as mentioned in the report.

“For example, in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies,” the CDC said.
Click to expand...

Imo, "predictive value" is going to be skewed by the testing of a large number of non-infected people and getting a larger number of false positive of the antibodies; it has nothing to do with the test kit sensitivity/specificity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top