ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 and the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1 for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Pathogens Including SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of the BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 plus and exploratory analysis of Ct values for respiratory pathogen quantification.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities in the management of severe pneumonia. Key concepts from the Seventh Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2025.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
- Pediatric respiratory co-infection and immunologic response: peds recon study protocol.Pediatric research · 2026Observational
- Post-pandemic resurgence and co-detectiondynamics of respiratory pathogens revealed by syndromic multiplex PCR.BMC microbiology · 2026Observational
- Impact of Point-of-Care Testing on Diagnosis, Treatment, and Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Viral Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparative performance evaluation of FilmArray RP 2.1 and targeted next-generation sequencing in upper respiratory tract infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx and the BioFire Multiplex Panel Tests for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens.Journal of medical virology · 2024Article
- Proximity-Unlocked Luminescence by Sequential Enzymatic Reactions from Antibody and Antibody/Aptamer (PULSERAA): A Platform for Detection and Visualization of Virus-Containing Spots.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Rapid Molecular Diagnostics of Pneumonia Caused by Gram-Negative Bacteria: A Clinician's Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Clinical Evaluation of a Multiplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Detection of 18 Respiratory Pathogens in Patients with Acute Respiratory Infections.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Respiratory Tract Infections and Laboratory Diagnostic Methods: A Review with A Focus on Syndromic Panel-Based Assays.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Article
- Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on circulating respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67-100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.
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.