ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the decreasing trends in daily confirmed COVID-19 cases and daily confirmed tests, there is a need for a new testing system capable of quickly and efficiently testing small amounts of samples. Therefore, we compared and evaluated the testing performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, an automated testing system that allows continuous loading of samples, and the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit that is currently being used in our laboratory. We compared the results of the two testing systems using 259 residual individual nasopharyngeal specimens and 91 residual pooled nasopharyngeal specimens that were submitted for COVID-19 testing in January and February 2023. The 95% limit of detection (LoD) for the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay determined using reference material for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was confirmed to be 17.793 copies/mL, while the LoD for the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit was determined to be 131.842 copies/mL for the RdRP gene and 241.77 copies/mL for the E gene. The comparative study using clinical specimens showed almost perfect agreement. Our data showed that the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay has a very low LoD. In addition, the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay and Real-Q Direct detection kit have comparable clinical performance for SARS-CoV-2 for individual and pooled samples.
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.