SynthesisExpert review of molecular diagnostics2021
The diagnostic accuracy of seven commercial molecular
Synthesis in Expert review of molecular diagnostics, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of LoopDeelab during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Innovative Device for Field Diagnosis.Viruses · 2022Trial
- Towards practical point-of-care quick, ubiquitous, integrated, cost-efficient molecular diagnostic Kit (QUICK) PCR for future pandemic response.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Review
- ƩS COVID-19 is a rapid high throughput and sensitive one-step quadruplex real-time RT-PCR assay.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Promise and perils of paper-based point-of-care nucleic acid detection for endemic and pandemic pathogens.Lab on a chip · 2023Review
- FDA authorized molecular point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 tests: A critical review on principles, systems and clinical performances.Biosensors & bioelectronics: X · 2022Review
- Application experience of a rapid nucleic acid detection system for COVID-19.Microbes and infection · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR assays: In vitro comparison of 4 WHO approved protocols on clinical specimens and its implications for real laboratory practice through variant emergence.Virology journal · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Article
- Behind the curtain of a weak diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the accuracy parameters of seven commercial molecular
methodsStudies evaluating the accuracy of seven different commercial molecular diagnostic tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test, Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Abbott ID NOW COVID-19, Cobas SARS-CoV-2, Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2, and BioFire COVID-19 Test) were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A bivariate random-effects regression model was implemented.
resultsMeta-analysis of 12 included studies showed that the performances of commercial COVID-19 molecular
conclusionAll evaluated tests showed good accuracy. However, the slightly lower sensitivity observed in the Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Simplexa COVID-19 Direct should be considered when deciding on a test platform. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 commercial diagnostic tests should be weighed against their ease of use and speed.
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.