Observational studyInternational journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases2021
Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.
Observational study in International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trend ofIJID regions · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Viral and Bacterial Co-Infections in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Individuals in Cyprus 2020-2022.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Dynamic Patterns and Predominance of Respiratory Pathogens Post-COVID-19: Insights from a Two-Year Analysis.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024Article
- Performance comparison of three commercial multiplex molecular panels for respiratory viruses at a South African academic hospital.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Respiratory Tract Infections and Laboratory Diagnostic Methods: A Review with A Focus on Syndromic Panel-Based Assays.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Pathogen Profile of Children Hospitalised with Severe Acute Respiratory Infections during COVID-19 Pandemic in the Free State Province, South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel, a rapid multiplex PCR method for the diagnosis of COVID-19.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 and the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1 for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Pathogens Including SARS-CoV-2.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Syndromic approach to SARS-CoV-2 detection using QIAstat-Dx SARS-CoV-2 panel from clinical samples.Journal of virological methods · 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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease.
methodsNasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated.
resultsIn total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean -14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, -14:37, -14:24]; P < 0.001).
conclusionsQIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
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.