ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia on lower respiratory tract specimens.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Article
- The Importance of Diagnostics in the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in the United Kingdom.Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD M10 Assay for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the Point-of-Care and Critical Care Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Lung donation and SARS-CoV-2 transmission: Missed detection versus missed opportunity?Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2022Article
- Review of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens in exhaled breath condensate.Journal of breath research · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic requires the availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tests, especially in such clinical settings as emergency and intensive care units. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR kit in lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens.
methodsConsecutive LRT specimens (bronchoalveolar lavage and bronchoaspirates) were collected from Intensive Care Units of San Martino Hospital (Genoa, Italy) between November 2020 and January 2021. All samples underwent RT-PCR testing by means of the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Seegene Inc., South Korea). On the basis of RT-PCR results, specimens were categorized as negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). A 1:1:1 ratio was used to achieve a sample size of 75. All specimens were subsequently tested by means of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR assay (Bosch Healthcare Solutions GmbH, Germany). The diagnostic performance of this assay was assessed against RT-PCR through the calculation of accuracy, Cohen's κ, sensitivity, specificity and expected positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.
resultsThe overall diagnostic accuracy of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 was 97.3% (95% CI: 90.9-99.3%), with an excellent Cohen's κ of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.72-1). Sensitivity and specificity were 96% (95% CI: 86.5-98.9%) and 100% (95% CI: 86.7-100%), respectively. In samples with high viral loads, sensitivity was 100% (Table 1). The distributions of E gene Ct values were similar (Wilcoxon's test: p = 0.070), with medians of 35 (IQR: 25-36) and 35 (IQR: 25-35) on Vivalytic and RT-PCR, respectively (Fig. 1). NPV and PPV was 92.6% and 100%, respectively. Table 1 Demographic characteristics and data sample type of the study cases (N = 75) Male, N (%) 56 (74.6%) Age (yr), Median (IQR) 65 (31-81) BAS, N (%) 43 (57.3%) Negative 30.2% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 27.9% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 41.9% BAL, N (%) 32 (42.7%) Negative 37.5% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 40.6% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 21.9% Data were expressed as proportions for categorical variables. Specimens were categorized into negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). BAS bronchoaspirates, BAL bronchoalveolar lavage, Ct cycle threshold Fig. 1 Distribution of E gene cycle threshold values of the rapid PCR and RT-PCR
conclusionsVivalytic SARS-CoV-2 can be used effectively on LRT specimens following sample liquefaction. It is a feasible and highly accurate molecular procedure, especially in samples with high viral loads. This assay yields results in about 40 min, and may therefore accelerate clinical decision-making in urgent/emergency situations.
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.