Observational studyJournal of clinical microbiology2026
From triplex to tetraplex: evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the new Roche Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B & RSV assay.
Observational study in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
Rapid and accurate diagnostics of epidemic respiratory viruses are relevant for optimal care pathways. In this observational diagnostic accuracy study, the novel Cobas Liat assay (Roche Molecular Systems) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in the clinical setting of Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. In addition, the added value of the tetraplex assay instead of two partially overlapping triplex assays (influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 or RSV) was assessed in the context of adult and pediatric emergency department (AED, PED) point-of-care (PoC) testing environments. A total of 315 clinical nasopharyngeal swab samples were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated against a molecular diagnostic reference. The evaluated Cobas Liat assay had sensitivities and specificities of 100% and 98.5% for influenza A, 100% and 99.7% for influenza B, 100% and 98.2% for SARS-CoV-2, and 100% and 97.0% for RSV, respectively. Among the index and reference tests, the Cobas Liat assay demonstrated the highest analytical sensitivity for influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV. No cross-reactivity with off-panel microbes was observed. With respect to clinical applicability, implementation of the evaluated tetraplex test would decrease double testing with two triplex tests in PED, likely decreasing costs and hands-on work. In AED, tetraplex testing would likely significantly increase the diagnostic yield for RSV, only rarely covered by PoC testing in AED. The evaluated Cobas Liat assay had excellent clinical and analytical accuracy, being highly suitable for PoC use but also for laboratory-based testing of influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV.IMPORTANCEUntil recently, rapid point-of-care diagnostics have been somewhat limited by triplex four-channel analysis technology, separating four of the most important epidemic respiratory viruses-influenza A, influenza B, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2-into two individual triplex tests. The evaluated tetraplex respiratory viral assay combines the two partially overlapping tests into a single test, streamlining analysis in two-test settings and potentially reducing diagnostic gaps in one-test settings. To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe the diagnostic accuracy of the novel Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) assay with additional considerations for analytical sensitivity and specificity, and clinical utility in adult and pediatric emergency department use.
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.