PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sian Taylor-Phillips
AU  - Sarah Berhane
AU  - Alice J Sitch
AU  - Karoline Freeman
AU  - Malcolm James Price
AU  - Clare Davenport
AU  - Julia Geppert
AU  - Isobel M Harris
AU  - Osemeke Osokogu
AU  - Magdalena Skrybant
AU  - Jonathan J Deeks
TI  - Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness
AID  - 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042453
DP  - 2020 Nov 01
TA  - BMJ Open
PG  - e042453
VI  - 10
IP  - 11
4099  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e042453.short
4100  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e042453.full
SO  - BMJ Open2020 Nov 01; 10
AB  - 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.