ArticleEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology2022
Validation of the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using upper and lower respiratory tract specimens.
Article in European journal of microbiology & immunology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-care PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 in the emergency department: Influence on workflow and efficiency.PloS one · 2023Article
- STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 Assay for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparison of Four Real-Time PCR Assays.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD M10 Assay for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the Point-of-Care and Critical Care Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study validated the performance of the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) based Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay against the TIB MOLBIOL E-gene/EAV, a standard laboratory rRT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 assay. Upper and lower respiratory tract samples (nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs, bronchoalveolar lavage, and tracheal aspirate) were obtained from patients suspected to have contracted COVID-19. Results from the Xpert® Xpress and standard rRT-PCR assays were compared for positive and negative agreement and analyzed for precision, reproducibility, 95% confidence intervals, and coefficients of variation. The Xpert® Xpress assay demonstrated 100% agreement with the standard lab rRT-PCR for both upper and lower respiratory tract samples. Both the Xpert® Xpress and lab rRT-CPR identified weakly positive (Ct values 35-39) sample replicates with 100% reproducibility and showed 100% precision in identifying triplicates of upper respiratory tract samples. The single-cartridge Xpert® Xpress system has a short turnaround time and can be employed to improve patient management and hospital bed allocation. Further verification of the system is required before implementation and consideration must be paid to its higher cost and impracticality for high-throughput use.
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.