We have published our next Cochrane review of Covid-19 tests:
Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection - Dinnes, J - 2020 | Cochrane Library cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…
Includes pre-prints and published studies available up to the end of May. We found 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
Due to the importance of these tests we currently updating to end of July and will republish in weeks.
Most of the data included here are from remnant sample studies, didn't use the tests according to their instructions, and were shockingly poor in other ways.
Hoping for better evidence in the update
Studies of antigen tests broke records for heterogeneity in sensitivity !
Moleular tests showed some difference between brands, but remember how poor these studies are
We urgently need more studies to be able to provide helpful evidence
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Daily Testing in school study report is out but presentation by BBC here is SPIN SPIN SPIN
The trial failed to show convincing reductions in school absence, and could not rule out large increases in Covid transmission. Sensitivity of the test was 53%.
BBC says that reduced absence by 33%, but the ITT analysis in the text says 20% reduction with 95% confidence interval from 46% reduction to a 19% increases (p=0.27). So no convincing evidence of a reduction.
Participants were first tested with LFTs – 810 positive and 1736 negative. The investigators choose to test 217 of the 1736 negatives with PCR – that’s 1 in 8. This wasn’t a random sample as they were influenced by clinical characteristics as well as the test result.
2/9
The sensitivity / specificity calculation is based on all LFT+ves and 12.5% of LFT-ves as follows:
Results from the LIVERPOOL EVENT PILOTS have been published on line and in the media. Somehow I missed these coming out. cultureliverpool.co.uk/event-research…
No official report from @dhscgov as per normal.
Seems important evidence is being delayed once again.
1/7
The bottom line is that the events were safe.
Kudos to Liverpool PH Team.
But detail is interesting to see why they were safe.
2/7
First the infection rate in Liverpool was very low when the events were held
Negative LFTs required for entry. 5/13263 positive and excluded. Same-day PCR found 4 people positive who had attended with false negative LFTs. So 5/9 were picked up by LFT – 44% missed.
3/7
What do we known about ORIENT GENE used in the Daily Contact Testing Trial by the @educationgovuk and @DHSCgovuk?
There have been claims that this test is as good as others and has been reviewed by @MHRAgovuk for use in assisted testing. This is not right
1/10
The process does not make sense.
The MHRA never review products for assisted testing as they are professional use tests, which go through the self-certification process to get a CE-IVD mark.
MHRA doesn't go near this process.
2/n
In fact ORIENT GENE is not even on the MHRA register of products which is a requirement. You can check here - both for the product and manufacturer (sorry for the messy link).