ArticleThe Journal of infection2025
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® Mpox and STANDARD™ M10 MPX/OPX for the detection of monkeypox virus.
Article in The Journal of infection, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of 3 Mpox Lateral Flow Assays for Antigen Detection, Democratic Republic of the Congo and United Kingdom.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of different border control strategies for reducing mpox importation risk: a modelling study.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparison of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in a community drive-through test centre in the UK.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluation of diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care (POC) molecular diagnostic tests for the detection of monkeypox virus (MPXV): Xpert® Mpox (Cepheid, Inc., USA) and STANDARD™ M10 MPX/OPX (SD Biosensor, Inc., Korea).
methodsDiagnostic accuracy of both POC platforms was evaluated using 53 upper-respiratory swabs (URS) and 32 skin lesions swabs (SS) collected from mpox and COVID-19 patients in the UK against the Sansure (Sansure Biotech Inc.) and CDC reference qPCR tests. The analytical sensitivity of both platforms was assessed using a viral isolate from II, B.1 lineage.
resultsThe overall sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert® Mpox was 97.67% [95% CI 87.71-99.94%] and 88.57% [95% CI 73.26-96.80%] and 97.44% [95% CI 86.52-99.94%] and 74.42% [95% CI 58.83-86.48%] comparing the Sansure and CDC qPCR, respectively and for the M10 MPX/OPX was 87.80% [95% CI 73.80-95.92%] and 76.60% [95% CI 61.97-87.70%] and 94.29% [95% CI 80.84-99.30%] and 86.67% [95% CI 73.21-94.95%] with the Sansure and CDC qPCR.
conclusionThe Xpert® Mpox had good diagnostic accuracy for both sample types while the M10 MPX/OPX clinical accuracy was deficient with URS. Our data supports the use of URS during the first 3 days of symptoms onset for mpox diagnosis.
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.