ArticleAdvances in virology2022
Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.
Article in Advances in virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Chlamydophila pneumoniae-associated community-acquired pneumonia in paediatric patients of a tertiary care hospital in Mexico: molecular diagnostic and clinical insights.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M Kit 2.0 on the SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Advances in virology · 2023Article
- Performance evaluation of Biofire Film Array Respiratory Panel 2.1 for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a pediatric hospital setting.PloS one · 2023Article
- Distribution of Viral Respiratory Infections during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the FilmArray Respiratory Panel.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Toward a Home Test for COVID-19 Diagnosis: DNA Machine for Amplification-Free SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Clinical Samples.ChemMedChem · 2022Article
- Respiratory Tract Infections and Laboratory Diagnostic Methods: A Review with A Focus on Syndromic Panel-Based Assays.Microorganisms · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Results: Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. Conclusion: The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.
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.