ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the Pluslife Mini Dock RHAM technology with Abbott ID Now and Cepheid GenXpert: A retrospective evaluation study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Detection of Feline HemotropicVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of the Pluslife MiniDock MTB and Molbio MTB Ultima Assays to Detect Tuberculosis From Tongue and Sputum Swabs Among Outpatients and in Active Case Finding in Cameroon.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- A smartphone-powered decentralized microfluidic platform for sensitive CRISPR-based nucleic acid detection.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of the novel, point-of-care Pluslife Mini Dock Dirofilaria immitis/Dirofilaria repens detection test with the modified Knott's test in dogs.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- A Memoir of Inventing Real-Time PCR and Developing the ABI 7700.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- RNase Hybridization-Assisted Amplification (RHAM) Technology: A High-Sensitivity, Field-Deployable Alternative to Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Rapid Detection of African Swine Fever Virus.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of swab-based molecular tests for tuberculosis using near-point-of-care platforms: a multi-country evaluation.EBioMedicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid and sensitive detection of pathogens is critical in interrupting the transmission chain of infectious diseases. Currently, real-time (RT-)PCR represents the gold standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RNase HII-assisted amplification (RHAM) is a promising technology, enabling reliable point-of-care (PoC) testing; however, its diagnostic accuracy has not yet been investigated. The present study compared the Pluslife Mini Dock (RHAM technology), with Abbott ID Now and Cepheid GeneXpert IV. The positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were determined in 100 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 210 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples. Further, the reliability of the Pluslife Mini Dock was investigated in different SARS-CoV-2 variants (Delta and Omicron subvariants). The PPA was 99.00% for Pluslife, 100.00% for Abbott ID Now, and 99.00% for Cepheid GeneXpert, with an NPA of 100.00%, 98.90%, and 93.72%, respectively. Abbott ID Now demonstrated the highest rate of invalid results. All SARS-CoV-2 analysed variants were detected by the Pluslife device. Altogether, the Pluslife Mini Dock demonstrated a PPA of 99.16% (235/237) for C
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.