ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Nanomaterial-nucleic acid probe synergy: accelerating rapid pathogen detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in bloodstream infections.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Development and Evaluation of Molecular Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 at English NHS Sites Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic.Viruses · 2026Review
- Role of Hologic® Panther AptimaTM SARS-CoV-2 assay in the detection of SARS-CoV-2: screening or diagnostic technique?Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison between Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Samples for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in Children with Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: A Pilot Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A precise review on NAATs-based diagnostic assays for COVID-19: A motion in fast POC molecular tests.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- Abbott® ID NOW™ COVID-19 rapid molecular assay versus Hologic® Panther Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay in nasopharyngeal specimens: results from 1-year retrospective study in an emergency department.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of the GSD NovaPrime® SARS-CoV-2 RTq-PCR assay.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Nationwide Harmonization Effort for Semi-Quantitative Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results in Belgium.Viruses · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the performance of the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott assay), Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima assay), BGI Real-Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (BGI assay), Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 assay (Lyra assay), and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Residual nasopharyngeal samples (n = 201) submitted for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing by Simplexa assay during June-July 2020 and January 2021 were salvaged. Aliquots were tested on other assays and compared against the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR assay. Viral load in positive samples was determined by droplet digital PCR. Among 201 samples, 99 were positive and 102 were negative by the CDC assay. The Aptima and Abbott assays exhibited the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) at 98.9% while the BGI assay demonstrated the lowest PPA of 89.9% with 10 missed detections. Negative percent agreement for all 5 platforms was comparable, ranging from 96.1% to 100%. The performance of all five assays was comparable.
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.