Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35223334›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Comparative Evaluation of Cartridge-Based Abbott ID NOW Test With Probe-Based Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Dipti Pattnaik, Nirmala Poddar, Basanti K Pathi, Kumudini Panigrahi, Smaranita Sabat, Ankita Roy, A Raj K Patro, Amrut Mohapatra, Shubhransu Patro, Ashok K Praharaj

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Implementation of isotermic PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dipti PattnaikMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Nirmala PoddarMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Basanti K PathiMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Kumudini PanigrahiMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Smaranita SabatCommunity Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital (IMS and SUM Hospital), Bhubaneswar, IND.
Ankita RoyMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
A Raj K PatroMolecular Biology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Amrut MohapatraPulmonary Medicine, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Shubhransu PatroDepartment of General Medicine, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Ashok K PraharajMicrobiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, IND.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar · INInstitute of Medical Sciences · INInstitute of Medical Sciences and Sum Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe gold standard test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) recommended by WHO is real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which has a turnaround time of five to six hours. Abbott ID NOW (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc., Scarborough, ME, USA), the cartridge-based loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, was approved by FDA for Emergency Use Authorization as rapid point of care testing. The present study was planned to evaluate the performance of the cartridge-based Abbott ID NOW test by comparing it to the currently used standard probe-based real-time RT-PCR method for detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in the eastern part of India after getting institutional ethics committee (IEC) approval. Two hundred fifty-nine cases of various age groups of both sexes who were advised for testing for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected according to protocol advisory by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India. Dry swabs were sent for Abbott ID NOW testing and swabs in viral transport medium were sent for probe-based RT-PCR assay using the CoviPath kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bangalore, India). The data were collected and statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for ID NOW were calculated taking RT-PCR as the gold standard.  Results: Out of 259 patients enrolled in the study, 49% were symptomatic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 was 20.84% among the study population. Sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values of ID NOW test in comparison to RT-PCR assay was found to be 87%, 98%, 92.1% and 96.8% respectively. ID NOW detected seven out of 54 (12.9%) cases as false negative who were found to be positive with RT-PCR, with mean Ct value of the target genes >34.

conclusionsIn this study the overall sensitivity for ID NOW assay was found to be lower, but specificity, positive and negative predictive values were found to be higher. It had the highest correlation to RT-PCR among symptomatic patients and at higher viral loads. Due to the ease of use and shortest result time for detecting COVID-19, ID NOW test could be used as a point-of-care test. But for all tests, the results should be interpreted according to the clinical and epidemiological context.

Indexed as

covid-19id nowlamp assaypandemicrt-pcrsars-cov-2sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID35223334
PMCPMC8861330
OpenAlexW4212801633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.