ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Epidemiological Transitions in Influenza Dynamics in the United States: Insights from Recent Pandemic Challenges.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Comparison of Two Field Deployable PCR Platforms for SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A and B Viruses' Detection.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nanoplasmonic microarray-based solid-phase amplification for highly sensitive and multiplexed molecular diagnostics: application for detecting SARS-CoV-2.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Article
- Standardization of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques by Calibration and Quantification to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.International journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert
methodsA total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire
resultsLoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire
conclusionThe Cepheid and BioFire
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.