ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. 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.
- Molecular Point-of-Care Testing for Respiratory Infections: A Comprehensive Literature Review (2006-2026).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance evaluation of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo, a novel qualitative and quantitative assay, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory diseases can share many of the same symptoms, highlighting the need for timely and accurate differentiation to facilitate effective clinical management and reduce transmission. Compared with centralized testing, molecular point-of-care tests (POCTs) can provide a faster time to result. We evaluated the RT-PCR POCT Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B qualitative assay for use on the Cobas Liat system (the POC SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test) in nasal and nasopharyngeal swab samples from 10 diverse healthcare facilities in the United States. A composite comparator design consisting of three centralized tests was used to analyze severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while performance vs a single centralized test was used for analysis of influenza A and B. Evaluations included performance stratified by sample type (prospective/retrospective and nasal/nasopharyngeal [paired by subject]), collection method (self/healthcare worker-collected [alternated and approximately balanced]), symptom status (symptomatic/asymptomatic), and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status, as well as assay inclusivity and system ease of use. A total of 2,247 samples were tested. For SARS-CoV-2, the overall percent agreement (OPA) was 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.9, 99.3) in nasal swab samples and 99.0% (95% CI: 98.2, 99.4) in nasopharyngeal swab samples. Regression analysis showed that cycle threshold values from paired nasal and nasopharyngeal swab samples were highly correlated (correlation coefficient 0.83). The OPA was ≥99.5% (sample type dependent) and 100.0% for influenza A and B, respectively. The POC SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test was easy to use. These results support the use of the POCT in various sample types and by various operators in the intended-use setting. IMPORTANCE: This study highlights the benefits of RT-PCR point-of-care tests, namely comparable performance to centralized testing in multiple sample types and ease of use. Utilizing assays such as the POC Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test may improve the timely differentiation of respiratory diseases that share similar symptoms.
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.