Point-of-care testing: state-of-the art and perspectives.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is becoming an increasingly popular way to perform laboratory tests closer to the patient. This option has several recognized advantages, such as accessibility, portability, speed, convenience, ease of use, ever-growing test panels, lower cumulative healthcare costs when used within appropriate clinical pathways, better patient empowerment and engagement, and reduction of certain pre-analytical errors, especially those related to specimen transportation. On the other hand, POCT also poses some limitations and risks, namely the risk of lower accuracy and reliability compared to traditional laboratory tests, quality control and connectivity issues, high dependence on operators (with varying levels of expertise or training), challenges related to patient data management, higher costs per individual test, regulatory and compliance issues such as the need for appropriate validation prior to clinical use (especially for rapid diagnostic tests; RDTs), as well as additional preanalytical sources of error that may remain undetected in this type of testing, which is usually based on whole blood samples (i.

Comprehensive, comparative evaluation of 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays.

We have previously highlighted the fact that hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were released months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the hundreds of studies investigating the test kits' performance, few were comparative reports, using the same comprehensive sample set across multiple tests. Recently, we reported a comparative assessment of 35 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for use in low- and middle-income countries, using a large sample set from individuals with a history of COVID-19.

Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays.

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics.