ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
Comparison of performance between three SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays (Aptima™, Laboratory Developed Test-Fusion, and R-GENE®) with special attention to turnaround time, a key point in laboratory management.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of performance between three SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays (Aptima™, Laboratory Developed Test-Fusion, and R-GENE®) with special attention to turnaround time, a key point in laboratory management.Journal of medical 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) highlights the importance of rapid diagnostic testing to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections and to limit the spread of the virus. Many molecular assays have become commercially available to cope with this surging demand for timely diagnosis of COVID-19 cases, but identifying individuals requires accurate diagnostic tools. We compared the performance of three molecular SARS-CoV-2 assays: Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay running on the Panther system (Hologic), an in-house assay (Laboratory Developed Test, LDT) running on the Fusion module of the Panther Fusion system (LDT-Fusion; Hologic), and the R-GENE® SARS-CoV-2 assay (bioMérieux). In addition, we also evaluated the turnaround time. This parameter is crucial to managing the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and represents a key point in the quality management at the laboratory. Aptima™ and LDT-Fusion assays exhibited an excellent positive percent agreement (PPA) (100.0%), while the R-GENE® assay showed a slightly decreased PPA (98.2%). The Hologic assays have a higher throughput with less hands-on time than the R-GENE® assays (24-25 vs. 71 min). Both Hologic assays are used on a fully automated random-access testing system with on-demand testing capabilities that avoid run series, unlike the R-GENE® assay. Automated random-access testing systems should be preferred during periods of high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence.
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.