Search

• Direct reading of the POC-CCA presents differences between readers. • The use of the g score scale in reading the point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) test proved to be an excellent tool for standardizing test interpretation. • The semi-quantitative scale shows greater concordance of results both among readers and among the different devices used to view the images. The POC-CCA test is subject to variations in reading interpretations depending on the intensity of its results, and trace test reading have implications for determining prevalence. The aim of this study was to assess whether the readings obtained from the POC-CCA tests, conducted using a semi-quantitative scale (the G-score classification for test determination), exhibited concurrence with the direct visual interpretation (positive, negative, or trace) performed by two distinct analysts, using photographs from previously performed POC-CCA test carried out in the municipality of Maruim, in the state of Sergipe-Brazil, a region of high endemicity. The devices used to read the photographs were smartphones, so as to simulate field usage, and a desktop, a tool with higher image quality that would help the researchers in the evaluation and establishment of the final result at a later. In direct visual interpretation of the POC-CCA photographs, the most discordant results occurred in the identification of the trace response (T). The Kappa index established for the direct visual interpretation between the two analysts, in which T is considered as positive, in the desktop was κ=0.826 and in the smartphone, κ=0.950. When we use the G-score as a reading standardization technique and classify the results according to the manufacturer, with trace being evaluated as positive, the highest level of agreement was obtained. Some disagreement remains between the direct visual interpretation and the G-score when performed on the desktop, with more individuals being classified as negative in the direct visual interpretation, by both analysts. However, this result was not statistically significant. The use of the G-score scale proved to be an excellent tool for standardizing the readings and classifying the results according to the semi-quantitative scale showed greater concordance of results both among analysts and among the different devices used to view the photographs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]