Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 24;2021(3):CD013705. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2

FIND 2020b.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Single group study to estimate sensitivity and specificity at single site:
‐ patients seeking COVID‐19 testing at main testing centre; described as presenting either with symptoms compatible with a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or with a known positive contact or asymptomatic HCWs (n=535)
Recruitment: Consecutive recruitment
Prospective or retrospective: Prospective
Patient characteristics and setting Setting: Community (main testing centre)
Location: Hopitaux Universitaires de Geneve (HUG), Geneva
Country: Switzerland
Dates: 9‐16 Oct 2020
Symptoms and severity: 534/535 symptomatic (99%)
Demographics: Mean age 38.5y (16 to 85y)
247, 46% male
Exposure history: Not stated
Index tests Test name: PanbioTM Covid‐19 Ag Rapid Test (41FK10)
Manufacturer: Abbott
Antibody: Not reported
Antigen target: Not reported
Test method: CGIA (from product insert)
Samples used: NP
Transport media: No transport media; assay buffer used
Sample storage: Author contact advises tested as soon as possible and within the time limit specified in the IFU
Test operator: HCW
Definition of test positivity: Presence of visible control and test lines
Blinding reported: Yes
Timing of samples: time pso recorded for 115/124, 92%. Day 0‐3 89, 78%; Day 4‐7 23, 20%; Day 8+ 3, 3%
Target condition and reference standard(s) Reference standard: RT‐PCR Roche Cobas; Ct threshold <40 (from Figure)
Definition of non‐COVID cases: Same as for cases. Single negative PCR required for absence of infection
Genetic target(s): Not stated
Samples used: NP swab (paired, from contralateral nostril)
Timing of reference standard: Not stated; author contact advises only paired swabs used.
Blinded to index test: Yes
Incorporated index test: No
Flow and timing Time interval between index and reference tests: Paired swabs; 0 to several days based on PCR turnaround times at the lab
All patients received same reference standard: Yes
Missing data: Reports 0 invalid.
Uninterpretable results: None reported
Indeterminate results (index test): None reported
Indeterminate results (reference standard): None reported
Unit of analysis: Patients
Comparative  
Notes Funding: FIND
Publication status: published
Source: FIND/HUG website/IFU index test
Author COI: None stated (these are independent evaluations)
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes    
Was a case‐control design avoided? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Antigen tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Rapid molecular tests)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? No    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes    
Reference standard does not incorporate result of index test? Yes    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     High
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Did all participants receive a reference standard? Yes    
Were results presented per patient? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Low risk