Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35261999›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2021

Comparison of two nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and two antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from upper respiratory specimens.

Peiting Kuo, Susan Realegeno, David T Pride

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Role of Hologic® Panther AptimaTM SARS-CoV-2 assay in the detection of SARS-CoV-2: screening or diagnostic technique?Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peiting KuoDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.
Susan RealegenoDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.
David T PrideDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.
University of California San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are numerous tests available for acute diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19. These tests fall into two main groups: nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and antigen-based assays. We evaluated the clinical performance of two rapid antigen assays (BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS CoV-2 and Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card) and one NAAT (Hologic Aptima SARS CoV-2 Assay) by comparing them with the initial test of record, the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay; the antigen tests were also compared to Aptima. We tested remnant frozen specimens from patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infections (either due to symptoms or exposure) on the comparator platforms to evaluate assay performance across a wide range of positive results, including cobas cycle threshold (Ct) values ranging between 12 and 35. We tested 250 previous positive and 50 previous negative specimens and found 95.6% positive percent agreement (PPA) with the Aptima assay. The few discrepancies between the NAATs occurred only when Ct values were >32. Agreement was much lower for the rapid antigen tests, with 45.2%/47.3% PPA for the Veritor and 47.0%/47.0% PPA for the Binax compared to cobas/Aptima. Discrepancies occurred when cobas Ct values were >20 for Veritor and >25 for Binax. The negative percent agreement (NPA) was 100% for all assay comparisons. These data indicate similar performance between the cobas and Aptima NAATs but demonstrate that antigen-based assays may be insufficient to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection when lower levels of the virus are shed.

Indexed as

Antigen testingAutomationCOVID-19Nucleic acid amplification testSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35261999
PMCPMC8019354
OpenAlexW3145547924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.