You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Practice review
COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review
  1. Charles Reynard1,2,
  2. Joy A Allen3,4,
  3. Bethany Shinkins5,
  4. Graham Prestwich6,
  5. Johnathan Goves2,
  6. Kerrie Davies7,8,
  7. Richard Body1,2
  8. on behalf of the CONDOR group
    1. 1 Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
    2. 2 Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
    3. 3 NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University School of Clinical Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Tyne and Wear, UK
    4. 4 Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    5. 5 Test Evaluation Group, Leeds Institute for Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    6. 6 Patient and Public Involvement, Yorkshire and Humber Academic Health Science Networks, Leeds, UK
    7. 7 Healthcare Associated Infections Research Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    8. 8 NIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    1. Correspondence to Dr Charles Reynard, Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK; charlie.reynard{at}nhs.net

    Abstract

    Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.

    However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.

    This practice review is written by members of the UK’s COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

    • COVID-19
    • diagnosis
    • emergency department
    • infectious diseases

    This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

    https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

    https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211814

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      View Full Text

      Footnotes

      • Handling editor Katie Walker

      • Twitter @richardbody

      • Collaborators CONDOR study steering committee members: Professor Richard Body, Professor Gail Hayward, Dr Joy Allen, Dr Julian Braybrook, Professor Peter Buckle, Professor Paul Dark, Dr Kerrie Davis, Miss Eloise Cook, Professor Adam Gordon, Mrs Anna Halstead, Professor Dan Lasserson, Dr Andrew Lewington, Dr Brian Nicholson, Professor Rafael Perera-Salazar, Professor John Simpson, Dr Philip Turner, Mr Graham Prestwich, Dr Charles Reynard, Mrs Beverley Riley, Mrs Valerie Tate and Professor Mark Wilcox.

      • Contributors CR and RB planned the manuscript. All authors contributed to the writing. All authors critically appraised the manuscript.

      • Funding This work is supported by the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform. COvid-19 National Diagnostic Research and evaluation(CONDOR) is grateful to receive funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Research and Innovation, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation. CSP is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Greater Manchester Applied Research Collaboration. CR receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. JAA receives funding from the NIHR, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation for the CONDOR. JAA is also supported by the NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. BS is supported by the NIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative (MIC). RB receives funding from the NIHR, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation for the CONDOR. KD receives funding from the NIHR, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation for the CONDOR.

      • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders, the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. In this practice review, we cover various technologies, we are not advocating for any given test and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

      • Competing interests RB has consulted for Siemens, Roche, Beckman, Singulex, LumiraDx and Abbott but not relating to COVID-19.

      • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

      • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.