ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Performance Evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD MAX System.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of GenXplore q4800: a novel open-platform automated nucleic acid testing system.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Clinical performance evaluation of BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for BD MAXDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M Kit 2.0 on the SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Advances in virology · 2023Article
- Analytic and Clinical Performance of Major Commercial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Molecular Assays in the United States.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.Advances in virology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing. The limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAX system (MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay), the bioMérieux BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay), and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther (Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay) NAAT systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with 7 target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, was evaluated in a postmarket clinical study utilizing 708 nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant testing was achieved using the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In this study, the measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 186 to 427) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/ml; 95% CI, 225 to 509) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/ml; 95% CI, 219 to 565); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had an LOD of 612 copies/ml (95% CI, 474 to 918). The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95% CI, 97.3% to 100.0%) and an NPA of 96.7% (95% CI, 94.9% to 97.9%) compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA assay.
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.