ArticleJournal of virological methods2020
Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress to SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review.Journal of virological methods · 2022Pooled 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
- Emergence of Clinically Macrolide-UnresponsiveAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and Clinical Characteristics of Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 and Influenza Infections in Children: A 2015-2024 Study in Taiwan.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- FDA authorized molecular point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 tests: A critical review on principles, systems and clinical performances.Biosensors & bioelectronics: X · 2022Review
- Agile design and development of a high throughput cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR diagnostic test.Heliyon · 2022Article
- An Overview of SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Diagnostics in Europe.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Persistence of live virus in critically ill patients infected with SARS-COV-2: a prospective observational study.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Observational
- Comparison between the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of two cobas SARS-CoV-2 tests based on high-throughput and point-of-care systems.BioMedicine · 2022Article
- Performance Evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD MAX System.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Parameters associated with diagnosis of COVID-19 in emergency department.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2021Observational
- Test it earlier, result it faster, makes us stronger: how rapid viral diagnostics enable therapeutic success.Current opinion in virology · 2021Review
- Laboratory Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Caution in interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification based on RT-PCR cycle threshold value.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 E Gene Variant Alters Analytical Sensitivity Characteristics of Viral Detection Using a Commercial Reverse Transcription-PCR Assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- COVID-19 and Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR-Facts and Fallacies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) universal screening in gravids during labor and delivery.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ∼2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses.
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.