tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 May 16. pii: JCM.00278-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00278-18. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]A comparison of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC and Xpress Flu/RSV assays.[/h] Popowitch EB[SUP]1[/SUP], Miller MB[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Molecular diagnostics for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have become commonplace and a variety of tests and systems have been FDA-cleared for use in the United States. We performed a retrospective study to compare the Cepheid Xpress Flu/RSV assay to the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay, using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as the reference method. The Xpress assay was 100% accurate as compared to the LDTs, while the Xpert Flu/RSV XC was 96.0% accurate. The Xpress test was determined to be faster and more sensitive than the XC.
PMID: 29769281 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00278-18
[h=1]A comparison of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC and Xpress Flu/RSV assays.[/h] Popowitch EB[SUP]1[/SUP], Miller MB[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Molecular diagnostics for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have become commonplace and a variety of tests and systems have been FDA-cleared for use in the United States. We performed a retrospective study to compare the Cepheid Xpress Flu/RSV assay to the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay, using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as the reference method. The Xpress assay was 100% accurate as compared to the LDTs, while the Xpert Flu/RSV XC was 96.0% accurate. The Xpress test was determined to be faster and more sensitive than the XC.
PMID: 29769281 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00278-18