ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2023
Diagnostic performances of four commercially available assays for the identification of SARS-CoV-2, influenza type A/B virus and RSV.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review of monkey B virus (Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2025Review
- Burden of Acute Respiratory Infections Caused by Influenza Virus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and SARS-CoV-2 with Consideration of Older Adults: A Narrative Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Review
- Performance of the Flash10 COVID-19 point-of-care molecular test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the fully automated, sample-to-result Seegene STARlet-AIOS platform for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus A, influenza virus B, and RSV.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic performance of 4 commercially NAAT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA, Influenza type A/B virus and RSV. Included tests were the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 fast PCR Assay (RNA extraction-free), Allplex™ RV Master Assay, Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 fast MDx Assay (LAMP) and Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2/Flu Assay (RT-TMA). The assays' performance characteristics were determined using nasopharyngeal swabs from 270 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 215 SARS-CoV-2 positive, 55 negative nasopharyngeal swabs and 19 bacteria strains were included. The sensitivities and specificities for detecting SARS-CoV-2, Influenza type A virus and RSV ranged between 81.8% and 100% with extremely good agreements (κ ≥ 86.8 %). The Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2/Flu Assay introduced a new result parameter, that is, TTime. Here, we showed that TTime may be used as a surrogate for Ct-value. We concluded that all assays assessed in this study can be used for routine detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza type A virus and RSV.
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.