ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Performance comparison of two nucleic acid amplification systems for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A multi-center study.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of two polymerase chain reaction assays, DaAn Gene (DaAn Gene 2019-ncov) and Cepheid (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2) for Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 detection in Yaoundé, Cameroon.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- Performance comparison of two nucleic acid amplification systems for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A multi-center study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany rapid nucleic acid testing systems have emerged to halt the development and spread of COVID-19. However, so far relatively few studies have compared the diagnostic performance between these testing systems and conventional detection systems. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the clinical detection performance between SARS-CoV-2 rapid and conventional nucleic acid detection system.
methodsClinical detection results of 63,352 oropharyngeal swabs by both systems were finally enrolled in this analysis. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of both systems were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy. Concordance between these two systems were assessed by overall, positive, negative percent agreement (OPA, PPA, NPA) and κ value. Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid nucleic acid detection system (Daan Gene) was further analyzed with respect to the viral load of clinical specimens.
resultsSensitivity of Daan Gene was slightly lower than that of conventional detection system (0.86 vs. 0.979), but their specificity was equivalent. Daan Gene had ≥98.0% PPV and NPV for SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, Daan Gene demonstrated an excellent test agreement with conventional detection system (κ = 0.893, p = 0.000). Daan Gene was 99.31% sensitivity for specimens with high viral load (C
conclusionsWhile showing an analytical sensitivity slightly below than that of conventional detection system, rapid nucleic acid detection system may be a diagnostic alternative to rapidly identify SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with high viral loads and a powerful complement to current detection methods.
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.