ArticleGenes2023
Clinical Evaluation of BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays for Sample-to-Answer Detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Genes, 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.
- Comparing clinical utility of STANDARD M10 rapid rtRT-PCR assay with pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the extreme infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are urgently needed in order to facilitate infectious disease surveillance and control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays—BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2—using clinical samples. Methods: A total of 77 leftover nasopharyngeal swab (NP) swabs (36 positives and 41 negatives) confirmed by reference SARS-CoV-2 RT real-time (q) PCR assay were collected. The clinical sample concordance, as specified by their respective emergency use authorizations (EUAs), in comparison to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, was assessed. Results: The results showed that all three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays provided perfectly concordant results consistent with the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay. The BioFire COVID-19 Test exhibited the best turnaround time (TAT) compared to the other assays, regardless of the test results, using one-way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe’s post hoc test (p < 0.001). The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 showed a shorter average TAT (mean ± standard deviation, 49.9 ± 3.1 min) in the positive samples compared to that (55.7 ± 2.5 min) of the negative samples. Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrates that the BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays compare favorably to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, along with a 100% concordance in assay results for clinical samples and an acceptable analytical performance at their guaranteed limits of detection. The addition of a widely used simultaneous sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay will contribute to the number of medical laboratories able to test for 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.