ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 Assay for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparison of Four Real-Time PCR Assays.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing clinical utility of STANDARD M10 rapid rtRT-PCR assay with pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of analytical performance of the STANDARDEmerging microbes & infections · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Rapid Multiplex Reverse Transcription-Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Individual and Pooled Samples.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for assays that can rapidly and accurately detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains high. We evaluated the performance of two rapid real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays (STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2) against conventional RT-qPCR assays (STANDARD M nCoV and Allplex SARS-CoV-2) for detecting SARS-CoV-2. A total of 225 swab samples were collected and tested using the four assays. The STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay showed 97.4% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 100.0% negative percent agreement (NPA) compared to the STANDARD M nCoV assay and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assay. STANDARD M10 exhibited high performance except in samples with low viral loads (cycle threshold (Ct) > 30). Xpert Xpress showed PPA and NPA of 100.0% compared to the two conventional RT-qPCR assays. The kappa coefficient (Κ) showed nearly almost perfect agreement between each assay and conventional RT-qPCR assays. The correlations of Ct values between the two rapid RT-qPCR and conventional RT-qPCR assays were >0.8, indicating strong correlations. All included assays could detect SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The recently developed STANDARD M10 has a shorter turnaround time and random-access detection on automated devices, thereby facilitating efficient testing in emergency settings.
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.