ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Settings Including Point-of-Care: Performance of the Cobas SARS-CoV-2 NAT and Utility with the Cobas Liat System.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a need to confirm the diagnostic performance of point-of-care (POC) testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in emergency departments and time-sensitive outpatient settings. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the Cobas
methodsThis prospective, two-site, non-interventional study, conducted in the US and Germany, collected fresh POC nasopharyngeal samples according to local procedures for upper respiratory swab sampling. Pairwise agreement was evaluated by estimating positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) between POC SARS-CoV-2 and 68/8800 assays. Site-specific analyses were also conducted.
resultsOverall, 317 evaluable samples were collected from March 30 to July 2023 (US site) and from November 7, 2023 to April 4, 2024 (German site). Relative to 68/8800, POC SARS-CoV-2 had a PPA of 98.8% (169/171) and an NPA of 90.4% (132/146), while the OPA was 95.0%. Site-specific analyses were broadly comparable to the overall results, although enrichment for positive samples at the US site resulted in a PPA and NPA of 98.6% (139/141) and 55.6% (5/9), respectively.
conclusionPOC SARS-CoV-2 used in both POC and central laboratory settings showed good overall diagnostic performance relative to 68/8800, a widely used and accurate laboratory-based test, for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Efficient POC testing will help improve the timely management of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
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.