ArticleJournal of virological methods2022
Clinical evaluation of the automated Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assays.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay in comparison to two singleplex SARS-CoV-2 assays and one multiplex respiratory assay.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Review
- A Targeted LC-MRMMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Influenza A, Influenza B, human respiratory syncytial virus and SARSCoV-2 molecular diagnostics and epidemiology in the post COVID-19 era.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Clinical comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests for routine diagnostic testing.Heliyon · 2023Article
- A simple algorithm based on initial Ct values predicts the duration to SARS-CoV-2 negativity and allows more efficient test-to-release and return-to-work schedules.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Impact of swab removal in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 weakly-positive specimens.Access microbiology · 2023Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetection of SARS-CoV-2 infections relies on the use of sensitive, accurate and high throughput RT-PCR assays.
objectivesWe assessed the analytical performance of the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (RT-SARS), Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 (AlinSARS) assays and compared the clinical performance of the RT-SARS, AlinSARS, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex (Alin4Plex) assays to the Seegene Allplex assay (Allplex) and an inhouse test (Inhouse).
resultsWe found 100 % positive percent agreement (PPA) and 100 % negative percent agreement (NPA) comparing RT-SARS and Allplex. RT-SARS, AlinSARS and Inhouse showed 100 % NPA and 100 % PPA across all assays, except for the RdRp target of Inhouse (PPA = 84 %). Similarly, Alin4Plex and Allplex showed high agreement with specimens containing either SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, or RSV. Detection rates of 100 % for SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL, high precision, and no cross-reactivity with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory pathogens were observed for RT-SARS and AlinSARS. AlinSARS detected SARS-CoV-2 in spiked throat washes and in specimens infected with SARS-CoV-2 Alpha or Beta variants.
conclusionsThe newly developed RT-SARS, AlinSARS, and Alin4Plex assays proved to be useful for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples.
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.