Image from Google Jackets

A Comparative systematic review of serological screening assays for SARS-COV 2 / Aaronne Vine A. Allanigui, Luis Matthew B. Reyna and Moira Nina Fe M. Tiangco.

By: Contributor(s): Language: english Publication details: Fairview, Quezon City: School of Medical Technology, FEU-NRMF, 2021.Description: 24 pages: illustrations, tables, photos; 28 cmContent type:
  • text
Media type:
  • unmediated
Carrier type:
  • volume
LOC classification:
  • MT 2021 0002
Summary: Abstract: The world is currently facing a health crisis caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV 2; thus, resulting in several tests being conducted to diagnose infection. Laboratories have been using RT-PRC as the gold standard for COVID 19 diagnosis. However, current issues have revealed that it has a tendency to elicit false results. Therefore, serological assays can aid in the diagnostic procedure. The objective is to compare ELISA, CLIA and IFA in terms of sensitivity, specificity and timing. This paper applied a Systematic Review approach by using databases from Google Scholar, PubMed, MedLine and medRxiv to systematically compare each test. According to the gathered information, ELISA's sensitivity percentages range from 80.85%, 84.3%, 85%, 92% and 100% while its specificity is 97.4% respectively. CLIA on the other hand has a sensitivity of 73.3% to 100% and a specificity of 92.2% -100%. Lastly for IFA, 76.5%-100% is its sensitivity and 95%-98.5% for its specificity. The timing of the tests became more specific and sensitive after 14 days. The researchers concluded that ELISA is the best and most commonly used assay in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Although serological assays are still developing, it is still considered to be a prospective diagnostic procedure for COVID19.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Status Date due Barcode
Room Use Far Eastern University - Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Theses MT 2021 0002 c.2 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Available T002169
Room Use Far Eastern University - Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Theses MT 2021 0002 c.1 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Available T002168
Room Use Far Eastern University - Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Theses MT 2021 0002 c.3 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Available T002170
Room Use Far Eastern University - Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Theses MT 2021 0002 c.4 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Available T002171

Includes bibliographical references.

Abstract: The world is currently facing a health crisis caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV 2; thus, resulting in several tests being conducted to diagnose infection. Laboratories have been using RT-PRC as the gold standard for COVID 19 diagnosis. However, current issues have revealed that it has a tendency to elicit false results. Therefore, serological assays can aid in the diagnostic procedure. The objective is to compare ELISA, CLIA and IFA in terms of sensitivity, specificity and timing. This paper applied a Systematic Review approach by using databases from Google Scholar, PubMed, MedLine and medRxiv to systematically compare each test. According to the gathered information, ELISA's sensitivity percentages range from 80.85%, 84.3%, 85%, 92% and 100% while its specificity is 97.4% respectively. CLIA on the other hand has a sensitivity of 73.3% to 100% and a specificity of 92.2% -100%. Lastly for IFA, 76.5%-100% is its sensitivity and 95%-98.5% for its specificity. The timing of the tests became more specific and sensitive after 14 days. The researchers concluded that ELISA is the best and most commonly used assay in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Although serological assays are still developing, it is still considered to be a prospective diagnostic procedure for COVID19.

Thesis - School of Medical Technology

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.