ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2023
Evaluation of STANDARD
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2023. 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.
- Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® Mpox and STANDARD™ M10 MPX/OPX for the detection of monkeypox virus.The Journal of infection · 2025Article
- Evaluation of analytical performance of the STANDARDEmerging microbes & infections · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to an urgent need for rapid diagnostic testing in order to inform timely patients' management. This study aimed to assess the performance of the STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19. A total of 400 nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs were tested against a reference real-time RT-PCR, including 200 positive samples spanning the full range of observed Ct values. The sensitivity of the STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay was 98.00% (95% CI 94.96% to 99.45%, 196/200), while the specificity was also estimated at 97.50% (95% CI 94.26% to 99.18%, 195/200). The assay proved highly efficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, even in samples with low viral load (Ct>25), presenting lower Ct values compared to the reference method. We concluded that the STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay has a similar performance compared to the reference method and other molecular point-of-care assays and can be a valuable tool for rapid and accurate diagnosis.
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.