ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2022
Performance Evaluation of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A & B Multiplex Real-Time PCR Kit in Comparison with the BioFire Respiratory Panel.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 Fast assay for the detection of influenza A/B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- From Triplex to Quadruplex: Enhancing CDC's Respiratory qPCR Assay with RSV Detection on Panther FusionMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- [Overview of PCR-based Diagnostic Assays for Emerging Infectious Disease Pathogens].Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4 for the Detection of 16 Respiratory Viruses: A Comparative Study with the Allplex™ Respiratory Panel Assay 1/2/3 and BioFireDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B v2 assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B viruses in nasopharyngeal swab specimens.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Optimization of extraction-free protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a commercial rRT-PCR assay.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- False-positive XpertSaudi medical journal · 2022Review
- Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 Similarities and Differences - A Focus on Diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Article
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
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses may pose enormous challenges to our healthcare system. We evaluated the performance of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A & B Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea) in comparison with the BioFire Respiratory Panels 2 and 2.1 (RP2 and RP2.1; bioMérieux, Marcy l'Étoile, France), using 147 nasopharyngeal swabs. The limit of detection (LOD) of the PowerChek assay was determined using SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and B RNA standards. The LOD values of the PowerChek assay for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B were 1.12, 1.24, and 0.61 copies/μL, respectively. The positive and negative percent agreements of the PowerChek assay compared with RP2 and RP2.1 were 97.5% (39/40) and 100% (107/107) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (39/39) and 100% (108/108) for influenza A; and 100% (35/35) and 100% (112/112) for influenza B, respectively. The performance of the PowerChek assay was comparable to that of RP2 and RP2.1 for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B, suggesting its use in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections.
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.