ArticleScientific reports2022
Performances of four Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occurrence and Distribution of Environmental Pseudomonas aeruginosa From Hospitals in Bangladesh Reveals Diverse Strain Families, Multidrug Resistance, and Biofilm Formation.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Applied One Health: Nigeria National Veterinary Research Institute COVID-19 pandemic response.The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research · 2024Article
- Rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection: Head-to-head comparison with qRT-PCR in Ethiopia.Heliyon · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reported, many commercial Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT) have been developed all over the world, and it has been the standard method. Even though several assays were rapidly developed and applied to laboratory diagnostic testing, the performance of these assays was not evaluated in different contexts. Thus, this study aimed to assess the performance of Abbott SARS-CoV-2, Daan Gene, BGI and Sansure Biotech assays by using Composite Reference Standard (CRS). The study was conducted at the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) from December 1 to 30/2020. Of the 164 nasopharyngeal samples were extracted by using a QIAamp RNA mini kit and Abbott DNA sample preparation system. Out of 164 samples, 59.1% were positive and 40.9% were negative by CRS. Sansure Biotech positivity was significantly low compared to CRS (p < 0.05). The overall agreement of the four assays compared to CRS was 96.3-100%. The performance of the four assays had almost comparable diagnostic performance, except for a low positive rate of Sansure Biotech assay. Hence, Sansure Biotech assay [Research Use Only (RUO)] needs further verification on its use in Ethiopia. Finally an additional study should be considered for evaluating assays with respective manufacturer claims.
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.