Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness
Objectives To assess the accuracy and completeness of information provided by websites selling home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19.Design Cross-sectional observational study.Setting All websites (n=27) selling direct to user home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19 (41 tests) in...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e042453.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846156509763862528 |
|---|---|
| author | Jonathan J Deeks Karoline Freeman Sian Taylor-Phillips Julia Geppert Magdalena Skrybant Alice J Sitch Malcolm James Price Sarah Berhane Clare Davenport Isobel M Harris Osemeke Osokogu |
| author_facet | Jonathan J Deeks Karoline Freeman Sian Taylor-Phillips Julia Geppert Magdalena Skrybant Alice J Sitch Malcolm James Price Sarah Berhane Clare Davenport Isobel M Harris Osemeke Osokogu |
| author_sort | Jonathan J Deeks |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To assess the accuracy and completeness of information provided by websites selling home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19.Design Cross-sectional observational study.Setting All websites (n=27) selling direct to user home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19 (41 tests) in the UK (39 tests) and USA (two tests) identified by a website search on 23 May 2020.Main outcome measures Thirteen predefined basic information items to communicate to a user, including who should be tested, when and how testing should be done, test accuracy, and interpretation of results.Results Many websites did not provide the name or manufacturer of the test (32/41; 78%), when to use the test (10/41; 24%), test accuracy (12/41; 29%), and how to interpret results (21/41; 51%). Sensitivity and specificity were the most commonly reported test accuracy measures (either reported for 27/41 [66%] tests): we could only link these figures to manufacturers’ documents or publications for four (10%) tests. Predictive values, most relevant to users, were rarely reported (five [12%] tests reported positive predictive values). For molecular virus tests, 9/23 (39%) websites explained that test positives should self-isolate, and 8/23 (35%) explained that test negatives may still have the disease. For antibody tests, 12/18 (67%) websites explained that testing positive does not necessarily infer immunity from future infection. Seven (39%) websites selling antibody tests claimed the test had a CE mark, when they were for a different intended use (venous blood rather than finger-prick samples).Conclusions At the point of online purchase of home self-sampling COVID-19 tests, users in the UK are provided with incomplete, and, in some cases, misleading information on test accuracy, intended use, and test interpretation. Best practice guidance for communication about tests to the public should be developed and enforced for online sales of COVID-19 tests. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1a7de95500e943cfbedee26cc93e26af |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-11-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-1a7de95500e943cfbedee26cc93e26af2024-11-25T22:55:07ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-11-01101110.1136/bmjopen-2020-042453Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completenessJonathan J Deeks0Karoline Freeman1Sian Taylor-Phillips2Julia Geppert3Magdalena Skrybant4Alice J Sitch5Malcolm James Price6Sarah Berhane7Clare Davenport8Isobel M Harris9Osemeke Osokogu10Department of Public Health, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UKDivision of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK7 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Screening & Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK2 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKInstitute Of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK2 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK2 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UKObjectives To assess the accuracy and completeness of information provided by websites selling home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19.Design Cross-sectional observational study.Setting All websites (n=27) selling direct to user home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19 (41 tests) in the UK (39 tests) and USA (two tests) identified by a website search on 23 May 2020.Main outcome measures Thirteen predefined basic information items to communicate to a user, including who should be tested, when and how testing should be done, test accuracy, and interpretation of results.Results Many websites did not provide the name or manufacturer of the test (32/41; 78%), when to use the test (10/41; 24%), test accuracy (12/41; 29%), and how to interpret results (21/41; 51%). Sensitivity and specificity were the most commonly reported test accuracy measures (either reported for 27/41 [66%] tests): we could only link these figures to manufacturers’ documents or publications for four (10%) tests. Predictive values, most relevant to users, were rarely reported (five [12%] tests reported positive predictive values). For molecular virus tests, 9/23 (39%) websites explained that test positives should self-isolate, and 8/23 (35%) explained that test negatives may still have the disease. For antibody tests, 12/18 (67%) websites explained that testing positive does not necessarily infer immunity from future infection. Seven (39%) websites selling antibody tests claimed the test had a CE mark, when they were for a different intended use (venous blood rather than finger-prick samples).Conclusions At the point of online purchase of home self-sampling COVID-19 tests, users in the UK are provided with incomplete, and, in some cases, misleading information on test accuracy, intended use, and test interpretation. Best practice guidance for communication about tests to the public should be developed and enforced for online sales of COVID-19 tests.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e042453.full |
| spellingShingle | Jonathan J Deeks Karoline Freeman Sian Taylor-Phillips Julia Geppert Magdalena Skrybant Alice J Sitch Malcolm James Price Sarah Berhane Clare Davenport Isobel M Harris Osemeke Osokogu Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness BMJ Open |
| title | Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| title_full | Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| title_fullStr | Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| title_full_unstemmed | Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| title_short | Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| title_sort | information given by websites selling home self sampling covid 19 tests an analysis of accuracy and completeness |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e042453.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jonathanjdeeks informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT karolinefreeman informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT siantaylorphillips informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT juliageppert informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT magdalenaskrybant informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT alicejsitch informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT malcolmjamesprice informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT sarahberhane informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT claredavenport informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT isobelmharris informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness AT osemekeosokogu informationgivenbywebsitessellinghomeselfsamplingcovid19testsananalysisofaccuracyandcompleteness |