ArticleBeni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences2023
Evaluation of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits: a comparative study.
Article in Beni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has hit many countries worldwide. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial to reduce disease burden. Many commercial kits have become available, but their performance needs to be assessed. This study aimed at evaluation of the diagnostic performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Rapid Antigen detection (RAD) kits for detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Five hundred sixty-four Nasopharyngeal swab specimens sent to Molecular Laboratory at Ain Shams University Specialized Hospital for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing collected from 564 subjects who attended the outpatient clinic for sample collection were randomly selected. All samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR using Viasure. Each time a recent kit was introduced, 94 samples, previously tested using Viasure, were used to determine the performance characteristics of the recent kit in comparison with Viasure, including Fast Track Diagnostics (FTD), DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2, ID NOW COVID-19 assay and Artron COVID-19 Antigen test kit. Results: Upon comparison, FTD, DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and ID Now showed positive percent agreement, 100%, 100%, 97.7%, 100%, 100% negative percent agreement, 86%, 100%, 98.8%, 90%, 100%, respectively. The RAD kit results, when compared with RT-PCR, showed high sensitivity at cycle threshold (Ct) < 30, low sensitivity at Ct ≥ 30, while specificity was 100%. Conclusion: Fast track, DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and ID Now showed good diagnostic performance. Positive RAD rule in SARS-CoV-2 infection, however negative results should be correlated with clinical condition and molecular testing.
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.