Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021
Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kanwar Neena, Banerjee Dithi, Sasidharan Anjana, Abdulhamid Ayah, Larson Marissa, Lee Brian, Selvarangan Rangaraj, Liesman Rachael M
Аннотация
We compared the performance of the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott assay), Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima assay), BGI Real-Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (BGI assay), Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 assay (Lyra assay), and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Residual nasopharyngeal samples (n = 201) submitted for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing by Simplexa assay during June-July 2020 and January 2021 were salvaged. Aliquots were tested on other assays and compared against the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR assay. Viral load in positive samples was determined by droplet digital PCR. Among 201 samples, 99 were positive and 102 were negative by the CDC assay. The Aptima and Abbott assays exhibited the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) at 98.9% while the BGI assay demonstrated the lowest PPA of 89.9% with 10 missed detections. Negative percent agreement for all 5 platforms was comparable, ranging from 96.1% to 100%. The performance of all five assays was comparable.