Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy

Thumbnail Image

Files

vaeth-et-al-2024-self-administered-versus-clinician-performed-binaxnow-covid-rapid-test-a-comparison-of-accuracy.pdf (269.43 KB)

Links to Files

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02525-23

Permanent Link

https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02525-23
 http://hdl.handle.net/11603/31758

Collections

UMBC Faculty Collection
UMBC Emergency and Distaster Health Systems
UMBC Student Collection

Author/Creator

Author/Creator ORCID

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-746X

Date

2024-02-13

Type of Work

journal articles
Text

Department

Program

Citation of Original Publication

Vaeth, Mary Jane E., Minahil Cheema, Sarah Omer, Ishaan Gupta, Kristie J. Sun, Asia Mitchell, Maryam Elhabashy, et al. “Self-Administered versus Clinician-Performed BinaxNOW COVID Rapid Test: A Comparison of Accuracy.” Microbiology Spectrum 0, no. 0 (February 13, 2024): e02525-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02525-23.

Rights

This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
CC BY 4.0 DEED Attribution 4.0 International

Subjects

Abstract

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.