ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2023
Analytical performance of rapid nucleic acid detection assays and routine RT-qPCR assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Shanghai, China in 2022.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-power microfluidic RT-LAMP system with real-time fluorescence detection for portable nucleic acid testing.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 varies among different assays. In this study, the analytical performance of 1 rapid nucleic acid detection assay (Coyote assay) and 2 routine RT-qPCR assays (BioGerm assay and DaAn assay) was evaluated, using 1196 clinical samples. Disagreement in the results of 2 paired targets occurred in all 3 assays. The Coyote assay failed to detect 15 samples, and the DaAn assay failed to detect 5 samples. The Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.970 between the BioGerm and DaAn assays, 0.907 between the Coyote and BioGerm assays, and 0.936 between the Coyote and DaAn assays. The positive percent agreement, and negative percent agreement of the Coyote assay were 84.04%, and 100%, respectively. Our study revealed that the results of the Coyote, BioGerm, and DaAn assays were highly consistent, which provided reference for the application of these assays for diagnosis of COVID-19.
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.