ArticleArchives of microbiology2022
Comparative analysis of specificity and sensitivity between Cobas 6800 system and SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR to detect COVID-19 infection in clinical samples.
Article in Archives of microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The potential of circulating microRNAs as novel diagnostic biomarkers of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fast and reliable testing for the COVID 19 infection is the need of the hour for the development of effective and reliable tools and assays. However, it is difficult to find the performance relativity among all these tests which are poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the two different platforms where we determine the difference of sensitivity and specificity between the fully automated analyzer (Roche Diagnostics Cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test) under FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the laboratory designed test (SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR) based on the protocol developed by ICMR (Indian Council for Medical Research). The study was conducted for individual samples. We performed our study with two different approaches, first with validation method consisting of 188 samples (2 batches) on cobas 6800 instrument (Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, NJ) soon after we received US FDA EUA on 1 June 2021, all these samples were tested earlier with laboratory designed tests on 25th and 26th May 2021. Over all agreement between the two tests is of 88% and the coefficient of agreement between the two testing platform Cohen'sκ coefficient was found to be 0.76 (95% CI, 2.5897-13.4103) suggesting the substantial agreement between the two platforms. However, in some of the cases, both tests have shown a little disagreement. An overall discordance rate between two systems was found 11.1%. The difference may be due to the limit of detection, variation in the sequences of the primer design or may be due to other factors depicting the importance of comparing the two platforms used in the testing for SARS-CoV-2. Second approach includes head to head evaluation which comprises 1631 samples showed overall agreement of 99% and kappa value of 0.98. These results showed that cobas is effective and reliable assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.