• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Med Virol . Diagnostic accuracy of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress and the Abbott ID NOW assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review an

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Med Virol


. 2021 Apr 29.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.26994. Online ahead of print.
Diagnostic accuracy of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress and the Abbott ID NOW assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis


Jonghoo Lee[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jae-Uk Song[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert Xpress and the ID NOW assays for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 using a systemic review and meta-analysis approach. A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. The sensitivity and specificity of these tests for detecting virus in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were pooled. We used commercial and laboratory-developed reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reactions as reference standards. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We identified 11 studies involving 1,734 subjects for the Xpert Xpress assay and 10 studies involving 1,778 subjects for the ID NOW assay. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert Xpress assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.98), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the ID NOW assay were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.00), respectively. The studies included in our analysis seemed to have low methodological quality. The Xpert Xpress assay showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, because the ID NOW assay showed relatively low sensitivity, this test might miss several positive samples. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Keywords: COVID-19 testing; Diagnosis; Point-of-Care Testing; Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom