ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative evaluation of five rapid PCR platforms for respiratory virus detection.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid integrated molecular testing for major respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe demand for rapid molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses has increased substantially. Several point-of-care PCR platforms have become available, yet comparative performance data remain limited.
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and operational reliability of four rapid PCR platforms for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A and B viruses (IAV, IBV), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), in comparison with the GeneXpert (Cepheid, USA) platform.
methodsNasopharyngeal swabs from patients with respiratory symptoms were tested using the GeneXpert, positive samples were subsequently analysed on four alternative systems: the 30-minute and 1-hour M10 (SD Biosensor, South Korea) assays, FlashDetect™ Flash10 (Coyote Bioscience, China), Vivalytic (Bosch Healthcare Solutions, Germany), and Galaxy Lite (Igenesis, China). Additional lower viral load samples and cultured IAV/ IBV strains were included.
resultsA total of 223 GeneXpert positive samples were prospectively analysed. Flash10 showed 94.6% overall agreement, missing SARS-CoV-2 (n = 4, GeneXpert Cycle threshold (Ct) min-max; 37.7-42.2), IAV (n = 5, 32.8-37.7), and IBV (n = 3, 26.5-36.7). Vivalytic showed 83.0% overall agreement, missing SARS-CoV-2 (n = 16, 30.4-42.2), IAV (n = 9, 26.8-37.7), IBV (n = 9, 27.2-36.7), and RSV (n = 4, 31.5-37.0). Galaxy Lite achieved 88.2% overall agreement but failed in 27.2% of test runs. With a smaller sample size the M10 (30-minute) assay showed 98.6% overall agreement with GeneXpert, missing one SARS-CoV-2 case (Ct 39.7).
conclusionAmong four platforms, the M10 (30-min version) and Flash10 platforms demonstrated the highest agreement rates with the GeneXpert. The variability in performance highlights the importance of independent platform evaluation.
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.