ArticleHeliyon2023
Clinical comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests for routine diagnostic testing.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay in comparison to two singleplex SARS-CoV-2 assays and one multiplex respiratory assay.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of GeneXpert and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: a retrospective study.Access microbiology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cycle threshold (Ct) values from SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests have been used to estimate viral load for treatment decisions. Additionally, there is a need for high-throughput testing, consolidating a variety of assays on one random-access analyzer. Objectives: In this study, the clinical performance of the Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, RealTi Methods: Alinity precision and detection rates were evaluated using a dilution series of the Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 positive control. In a retrospective study, 7 remnant external quality assessment (EQA) specimens and 200 remnant nasopharyngeal swab specimens (100 positive and 100 negative) were tested in the three assays. Results: Alinity had 100 % detection rate at 50 copies/mL and high reproducibility (Ct value coefficient of variation ≤3.1 %). All three assays correctly detected positive and negative EQA samples with comparable Ct values (max difference 2.38) and high linearity. In patient samples, positive percent agreement was 95 % (95 % CI 89-98 %) and negative percent agreement was 100 % (95 % CI 96-100 %) for Alinity, compared to the other two assays. Four specimens detected on Alinity m but not RealTi Conclusions: Alinity m had high precision and accuracy and Ct values comparable to those of the RealTi
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.