ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2020
Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
112 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress to SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review.Journal of virological methods · 2022Pooled it
- The screening value of RT-LAMP and RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of virological methods · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress and the Abbott ID NOW assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical virology · 2021Pooled it
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory samples for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Molecular Point-of-Care Testing for Respiratory Infections: A Comprehensive Literature Review (2006-2026).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Emergence of Clinically Macrolide-UnresponsiveAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Simplified Co-extraction of total Nucleic Acids from Respiratory Samples for detection ofmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Clinical Characteristics of Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 and Influenza Infections in Children: A 2015-2024 Study in Taiwan.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Impact of Point-of-Care Testing on Diagnosis, Treatment, and Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Viral Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of a point-of-care molecular system for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Peru.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation of a Standard M10 Assay with Xpert Xpress for the Rapid Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the AdvanSure One-Stop COVID-19 Plus Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Using a Streamlined RNA Extraction Method.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- When rare becomes common: N2 gene-positive, E gene-negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results between 2021 and 2022.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- Integrating tuberculosis and COVID-19 molecular testing in Lima, Peru: a cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study.The Lancet. Microbe · 2023Article
- COVID or no COVID: Interpreting inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results in different populations and platforms.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- Analytical performance of the rapid qualitative antigen kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during widespread circulation of the Omicron variant.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023Observational
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.