UV For Rapid Antigen Test
- Thread starter AshFey
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
AshFey
Newly Enlightened
Ah, thanks!
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
WARNING: Inova specifies the X5 as "365-400nm." You do NOT want to guess regarding the actual wavelength when using it for a for a medical test! If the test specs call for 365nm, using anything other than this could cause a false negative result which could be dangerous.
electrolyte
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2019
- Messages
- 61
No, no, positively no. Much of the concerned world has been focused on the shiny, bright, new PCR technology dismissive of old-school antigen-antibody tests. Yes, I'd say that most of the lateral flow tests of today are inferior to well-done PCR tests, but not always. Monoclonal antibodies are often lower affinity than those derived from sera, but there have been improvements if monoclonals must be used. Even at that, antigen-antibody reaction based tests are a mature technology and molecular nucleic acid tests have a lot of room for improvement so they may get to a point where they are always more "accurate" and not need a laboratory.
As an example, a very sad situation developed in the West African Ebola epidemic where the shiny PCR test favored by those with authority repressed a better point of care lateral flow test that could be field-deployed, and was safer to administer (finger-prick vs. collect a vial of potentially infectious blood). There is no arguing that sitting down with a bunch of potentially exposed people in the middle of nowhere and talking with them about the results is better than taking samples and trying to find them three days later after the lab gets the results and travel time. A lot more lives could have been saved and the area could have been back to normal sooner had the lateral flow test been given proper consideration by the WHO.
If you want to see more: www.thelancet.com Vol 386 August29,2015; ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test kit for point-of-care and laboratory-based testing for Ebola virus disease: a field validation study.
AshFey
Newly Enlightened
So true! It's okay though, Vinh at Sky Lumen is going to make me a light with a 365nm emitter.
Although it looks like Kitrobaskin and electrolyte may be correct that a light will be supplied with the tests. A light with every set of tests is an insane amount of lights... Imagine a worker and their household of close contacts testing themselves every day. That's a crazy amount of UV lights in a pretty short amount of time. This pandemic just keeps on changing the world - and giving me a headache.
A good antigen test is probably better than a PCR at detecting whole virus - ie infectiousness, but a PCR is the gold standard in sensitivity as they pick up partial SARS-CoV-2 virus. There have been 25-30 home use rapid antigen tests approved for use in my region, but only 5-6 have been shown to be in the high sensitivity bracket. The tests we have are considered to be 93-97% accurate when COVID symptoms are present, but only 50-60% accurate in asymptomatic people. Frequency of tests also factors into practical accuracy.
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
Glad to hear this! Even if you wind up getting basic UV lights with the test kits, you'll be able to compare both types of lights knowing that they both produce the correct wavelength, just different power levels. This will give you a good sense of whether the test indicators are highly sensitive to variations ini optical power levels.
