A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

A Many-analysts Approach to the Relation Between Religiosity and Well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

SARS-CoV-2 Alpha-Variant Outbreak Amongst a Partially Vaccinated Long-Term Care Facility Population in The Netherlands—Phylogenetic Analysis and Infection Control Observations

Despite extensive vaccination and booster programs, SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) continue to occur. We retrospectively describe a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak amongst a partially vaccinated LTCF population in The Netherlands which occurred in March 2021. The facility comprised three floors functioning as separate wards. Nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from residents and staff presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms and from all residents and staff during two point prevalence screenings (PPS). Samples meeting technical criteria were included for phylogenetic analysis. Positive SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR were obtained from 11 (18%) of 61 residents and 8 (7%) of 110 staff members between March 8 and March 25. Seven (37%) cases and five (63%) vaccinated cases were diagnosed through PPS. Cases were found on all wards. Phylogenetic analysis (n = 11) showed a maximum difference of four nucleotides between sequences on the outer branches of the tree, but identified two identical sequences on the root differing maximum two nucleotides from all other sequences, suggesting all did belong to the same cluster. Our results imply that PPS is useful in containing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks amongst (vaccinated) LTCF populations, as an entire LTCF might behave as a single epidemiological unit and it is preferable to maximize the number of samples included for phylogenetic analysis

Evaluation of the test accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in symptomatic community dwelling individuals in the Netherlands.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is well suited for the diagnosis of clinically ill patients requiring treatment. Application for community testing of symptomatic individuals for disease control purposes however raises challenges. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests might offer an alternative, but quality evidence on their performance is limited.MethodsWe conducted an evaluation of the test accuracy of the 'BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2' (VRD) compared to qRT-PCR on combined nose/throat swabs obtained from symptomatic individuals at Municipal Health Service (MHS) COVID-19 test centers in the Netherlands. In part one of the study, with the primary objective to evaluate test sensitivity and specificity, all adults presenting at one MHS test center were eligible for inclusion. In part two, with the objective to evaluate test sensitivity stratified by Ct (cycle threshold)-value and time since symptom onset, adults who had a positive qRT-PCR obtained at a MHS test center were eligible.FindingsIn part one (n = 352) SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8%, overall specificity 100% (95%CI: 98·9%-100%) and sensitivity 94·1% (95%CI: 71·1%-100%). In part two (n = 123) the sensitivity was 78·9% (95%CI: 70·6%-85·7%) overall, 89·4% (95% CI: 79·4%-95·6%) for specimen obtained within seven days after symptom onset and 93% (95% CI: 86%-97.1%) for specimen with a Ct-value below 30.InterpretationThe VRD is a promising diagnostic for COVID-19 testing of symptomatic community-dwelling individuals within seven days after symptom onset in context of disease control. Further research on practical applicability and the optimal position within the testing landscape is needed

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62–75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61–76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68–80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68–81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72–83% and 54–56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log(10) SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79–91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82–94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82–92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77–89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69–75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02300-9

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study

AbstractObjective To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. Design Prospective cross sectional study. Setting Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. Participants 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. Results Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were &gt;99%, and positive and negative predictive values were &gt;90% and &gt;95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. Conclusions The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness. </p

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross sectional study

AbstractObjective To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure. Design Prospective cross sectional study. Setting Four public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands. Participants 4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness. Results Of 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses. Conclusions The sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study

Objectives: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. Results: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3–34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9–29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1–33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6–59.2%), 37.8% (22.5–55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5–51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Discussion: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged [Formula: see text] 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3–54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6–75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4–63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9–89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1–84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6–41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8–94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3–64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3–61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1–79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02603-x

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged [Formula: see text] 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3–34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9–29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1–33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6–59.2%), 37.8% (22.5–55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5–51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. DISCUSSION: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop