Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35005704›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021

Performance of Abbott ID-Now rapid nucleic amplification test for laboratory identification of COVID-19 in asymptomatic emergency department patients.

Anu Ramachandran, Jeanne Noble, Anne Deucher, Steve Miller, Patrick Wai Tang, Ralph C Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anu RamachandranDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9038-1825
Jeanne NobleDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.
Anne DeucherDepartment of Laboratory Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.
Steve MillerDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.
Patrick Wai TangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.
Ralph C WangDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to evaluate the test characteristics of Abbott ID-Now as a screening tool compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for identification of COVID in an asymptomatic emergency department population.

methodsWe performed a prospective study enrolling a convenience sample of asymptomatic patients presenting to a single academic emergency department (ED) who received simultaneous testing with ID-Now and PCR per standardized ED protocols. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of ID-Now were calculated compared to PCR. Stratified analysis by cycle threshold (Ct) values was also performed, defined as high viral load (Ct < 33) and low viral load (Ct ≥ 33).

resultsA total of 3121 patients were enrolled, of whom 2895 had valid results for ID-Now and PCR. COVID prevalence was 2.6%. ID-Now had a sensitivity of 85.1% (95% CI 75.9% to 92.7%) and a specificity of 99.7% (99.5% to 99.9%). PPV and NPV were high at 87.5% (83.1% to 96.1%) and 99.6% (99.3% to 99.8%). Stratified analysis by low and high Ct values demonstrated reduction in sensitivity in patients with low viral loads: 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%) in low Ct value patients versus 58.3% (27.7% to 84.8%) in high Ct value patients.

conclusionsID-Now had excellent performance in asymptomatic ED patients with a low rate of false positives. Cycle threshold analysis suggests a relationship between viral load and ID-Now sensitivity. Given its speed and performance in this population, ID-Now should be considered an excellent tool to support clinical decision-making in ED populations.

Indexed as

COVID‐19diagnostic testingpoint‐of‐care testingtriagevalidation

Identifiers

PMID35005704
PMCPMC8716572
OpenAlexW4200147140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.