SIGN UP FOR UPDATES!
Sign up for Englemed updates from TwitterSign up for Englemed updates from Facebook
ENGLEMED
Contact Englemed
Our contact email address.
We can provide a specialist, tailored health and medical news service for your site.
Click here for more information
RSS graphic XML Graphic Add to Google
About Englemed news services - services and policies.
Englemed News Blog - Ten years and counting.
Diary of a reluctant allergy sufferer - How the British National Health Service deals with allergy.
BOOKS AND GIFTS THIS WAY!
BookshopFor books on women's health, healthy eating ideas, mental health issues, diabetes, etc click here
SEARCH THIS SITE
Google

WWW Englemed
Copyright Notice. All reports, text and layout copyright Englemed Ltd, 52 Perry Avenue, Birmingham UK B42 2NE. Co Registered in England No 7053778 Some photos copyright Englemed Ltd, others may be used with permission of copyright owners.
Disclaimer: Englemed is a news service and does not provide health advice. Advice should be taken from a medical professional or appropriate health professional about any course of treatment or therapy.
FreeDigitalPhotos
www.freedigitalphotos.net
FreeWebPhotos
www.freewebphoto.com
FROM OUR NEWS FEEDS
Epithelial cell states distinguish between uterine cancers
Fri December 3rd - Two epithelial cell states have been identified that can help to distinguish between types of uterine cancer, British researchers announced last night. More
COVID-19 boosters increase immunity
Fri December 3rd - Six different types of COVID-19 boosters are safe and increase immunity following vaccination with either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech jabs, British researchers report today. More
RECENT COMMENTS
On 09/10/2020 William Haworth wrote:
How long is recovery time after proceedure... on Ablation cuts atrial fibrillat...
On 08/02/2018 David Kelly wrote:
Would you like to write a piece about this to be i... on Researchers unveil new pain re...
On 23/10/2017 Cristina Pereira wrote:
https://epidemicj17.imascientist.org.uk/2017/06/21... on HIV breakthrough - MRC...
On 12/09/2017 Aparna srikantam wrote:
Brilliant finding! indeed a break through in under... on Leprosy research breakthrough...
On 01/07/2017 Annetta wrote:
I have been diagnosed with COPD for over 12 years.... on Seaweed plan for antimicrobial...
OUR CLIENTS
THIS WEEK'S STORIES
ENGLEMED HEALTH NEWS

Doubts over fast antibody testing

Thursday November 12th 2020

A rapid antibody test will have limited use for telling the public whether they are safe against COVID-19 infection, researchers warn today.

A major UK study reported in The BMJ says the test is useful for population studies – but flawed as a way of telling people whether they have protective antibodies.

The research involved the Abc-19TM rapid fingerprick test.

Researchers at the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge and Warwick tested samples from 2,847 key workers. 268 had previously tested positive for infection with PCR tests.

The found that 2.1% of users of the antibody test incorrectly tested positive for previous infection while the sensitivity of the test fell to 84.7% among those whose previous infection status was unknown. This compared with 92.5% among those who had previously had positive PCR tests – suggesting they might have had higher antibody tests than others as a result of having clinically identifiable disease.

84.7% sensitivity is probably a “realistic” estimate of how the test would perform in the real world, they say.

Even laboratory staff often struggled to agree whether a result was positive or negative, they said, suggesting that home testing kits might lead to even more uncertainty.

The researchers say the study “highlights the scope for overestimation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody test sensitivity in other studies in which sensitivity has been estimated only from PCR confirmed cases.”

Writing in the journal Dipender Gill, of Imperial College, London, says the work “identifies notable limitations of the UK government’s antibody test of choice and provides good evidence that its specificity in a “real life.”

Dr Gill writes: “A clear message must be communicated to the public that positive results from these assays do not provide evidence of immunity.

“Apart from limited surveillance to estimate the proportion of a population that has been infected, widespread use of this assay in any other role could risk considerable harm.”

Accuracy of UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) “AbC-19 Rapid Test” for detection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in key workers. BMJ 12 November 2020

[abstract]

Tags: Flu & Viruses | UK News

Printer friendly page Printer friendly page

Comment on this article:

Name:
Email:
Comment:
<a>,<b> & <p> tags allowed
Please enter the letters displayed:
(not case sensitive)
CATEGORIES