ArticleVirology journal2022
Comparison of the performance of two real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid: a study based on large real clinical samples.
Article in Virology journal, 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.
- Multicenter evaluation of Coyote FlashDetect LyocartE multiplex assays for six respiratory pathogens: a comparative analysis with Sansure and Cepheid assays.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Performance of the Flash10 COVID-19 point-of-care molecular test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the development of multiple detection kits by national manufacturers for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral nucleic acid testing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of different kits (i.e., Maccura kit and Sansure kit) in real clinical work using clinical samples, which will help with the optimization of the test kits.
methodDuring the past three months (March-May 2022), 1399 pharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 patients have been initially screened using the Maccura kit in Jilin, China, and the test results were verified using the Sansure kit. The cycle threshold (Ct) values generated by the two kits were compared at different viral load levels. Correlation and consistency of the Ct values were investigated using Spearman correlation, Deming regression, and Bland-Altman plots. The cut-off Ct values of the Maccura kit were recalculated by referencing the result of the Sansure kit as a standard. Furthermore, another 163 pharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 patients were collected to verify the new cut-off values.
resultsAs a result of the Maccura kit testing, 1192 positive cases and 207 suspected COVID-19 cases were verified. After re-examination by the Sansure kit, 1118 positive cases were confirmed. The difference between the Ct values provided by the two kits was statistically significant, except for the N gene at high viral load. The Ct values obtained from the two kits presented a linear positive correlation. The Maccura kit used new cut-off Ct values of 35.00 (ORF1ab gene) and 35.07 (N gene). Based on that, the validation pass rate for the new cut-off Ct values was 91.41%.
conclusionSince the Maccura kit is found to have false positives in actual clinical work, recalculation of the cut-off values can reduce this occurrence. In order to improve the accuracy of the testing, laboratories should use two kits for COVID-19 testing, and the adjusting and optimizing of the kits for their situation are needed.
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.