ReviewIranian journal of microbiology2025
Diagnostic value comparative analysis of the commercial kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of microbiology, 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
Background and Objectives: Rapid and accurate identification of suspicious SARS-CoV-2 patients is essential in controlling the infection. Numerous commercial kits are developed which target diverse regions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome. This systematic review addresses the lack of comprehensive analyses comparing the diagnostic value of commercial kits for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We aimed to compare diagnostic value of commercial SARS-CoV-2 kits in clinical samples using a systematic review and meta-analysis method. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on main databases of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from 2019 to October 2021 using the appropriate keywords. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline PRISMA checklist was used to select eligible studies. Results: The most frequent introduced kits were from USA (33 cases) and China (27). Among all studies, 11, 9 and 7 papers had assessed FDA -CDC, Sansure and Allplex kits, respectively. The majority of the kits were based on RT-PCR (52 cases) and the most frequent genes target was N protein (63 cases). The overall sensitivity of the kits was 80.5%. The lowest sensitivity was reported for Daan Kit, while the highest sensitivity was seen for many kits. The specificity of the kits ranged from 87.9% to 99.8% and the overall specificity was 97.9%. Both PPV and NPV of the kits ranged from 87.9% to 99.8% for PPV and 82.9% to 99.8% for NPV. Conclusion: Based on DOR obtained from three different formulas, GeneFinder, InBios, NxTAG, Simplexa and FDA-CDC kit have better detection performance. The GeneFinder Kit appears to be among the more suitable options regarding cost-effectiveness for each reaction.
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.