RE:RE:New here, question for Sona longsThe Panbio line is not sold in the USA.
The IDNOW sells millions of tests. so out that 5% will miss according to its specs.
So reports of 106 false positive is well below what should have happen for 1 M tests 50,000 should have been false.
Abbott Laboratories Says Its Rapid Coronavirus Test Correctly Identifies Positive Cases 95% of the Time
The interim clinical data indicates that ID NOW flags infected patients in nearly every instance.
Eric Volkman
(TMFVolkman)
Oct 7, 2020 at 5:03PM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/07/abbott-laboratories-says-its-rapid-coronavirus-tes/ creesil wrote: Whatdoiknow123 did a good piece on this test a while ago. I pasted it below:
PANBIO ABBOTT. this test as we know is produced by a Major USA Company, is easy to use, cheap and quick. It has very good published Sensitivity and Selectivity figures but these were produced only on proven Symptomatic patients well established in their infectious phase. In addition while their accuracy on high-viral loads was excellent it was much less so on patients with low-viral loads . They also have no tests on Asymptomatic patients( not really surprising that they didn´t test on this group in view of the above). They also have no 3 rd party Validation and can offer no independent accuracy figures. This is particularly relevant because the accuracy of their test has been questioned on several occasions attracting widespread media coverage which you can find online. One such case was in Vermont and here are a few extracts: In mid-May, the Food and Drug Administration issued a rare public warning about an Abbott Laboratories COVID-19 test that for weeks had received high praise from the White House because of its speed: Test results could be wrong. The agency at that point had received 15 “adverse event reports” about Abbott’s ID NOW rapid COVID test suggesting that infected patients were wrongly told they did not have the coronavirus, which had led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. The warning followed multiple academic studies showing higher “false negative” rates from the Abbott device, including one from New York University researchers who found it missed close to half of the positive samples detected by a rival company’s test. The FDA has now received a total of 106 reports of adverse events for the Abbott test, a staggering increase.The agency has not received a single adverse event report for any other point-of-care tests meant to diagnose COVID-19, an agency spokesperson said. “Everybody was raving about it,” a former administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “It’s an amazing test, but it has limitations which are now being better understood.” Abbott will have been working on their test to try to improve it but their failure to carry out 3rd Party Validation leaves significant doubt. They have also changed the name of their test although I can find no evidence to suggest that it is not exactly the same test, which also casts doubt on their motives. You may remember how their CEO and their Chief Scientific Officer avoided answering any awkward questions on the Trial patient population, the absence of Asymptomatics etc. and yet ,at the same time, seemed to quite dishonestly imply that their test could help in Screening. They will, obviously, get Approval and will be very successful because it seems to be a good test but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions and clearly at this stage cannot be used in a general Screening Programme.