Excellent negative predictive value (99.8%) of two rapid molecular COVID-19 tests compared to conventional RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in 2,011 tests performed in a single centre.
Leong, K. W.; Law, T. L.; Saiful, A. b. S.; Kang, C. C.; Woo, Y. Y.; Chow, T. S.; Yong, Z. L.
Show abstract
Conventional Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) remains the gold standard for testing SARS-CoV-2. Since their availability, two rapid molecular COVID-19 tests were performed in parallel with RT-PCR in all urgent and emergency admissions, as the negative predictive value was not yet ascertained. In this study, we present the data of 2,011 test results using either ID Now COVID-19 (Abbott) (Abbott ID NOW) or Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid) (GeneXpert) tests comparing to conventional RT-PCR results. The negative predictive value is 99.8%(3 false negatives out of 1,964 tests) using a cut-off CT value of 40. Using a cut-off of RT-PCR CT value of 30 (predicting infectivity), the negative predictive value is reduced to 99.9% (1 out of 1,964 tests). With these results, we feel confident to recommend the immediate use of the rapid PCR tests alone and to use conventional RT-PCR for confirmation testing after.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients 96%
- Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 95%
- Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an Emergency Department 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals During the Omicron Wave 95%
- Acceptable Performance of the Abbott ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals with Confirmed COVID-19 95%
- Combined oropharyngeal/nares and nasopharyngeal swab sampling remain effective for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 95%
- Evaluation of seven different rapid methods for nucleic acid detection of SARS-COV-2 virus 95%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 95%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 94%
- Evaluation of VIDAS® diagnostic assay prototypes detecting dengue virus NS1 antigen and anti-dengue virus IgM and IgG antibodies 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.