Suppr超能文献

在埃塞俄比亚,四种核酸扩增检测技术用于鉴定 SARS-CoV-2 的性能。

Performances of four Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia.

机构信息

HIV/AIDS Disease Research Team, TB and HIV/AIDS Disease Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 24;12(1):20282. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24411-2.

Abstract

Since Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reported, many commercial Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT) have been developed all over the world, and it has been the standard method. Even though several assays were rapidly developed and applied to laboratory diagnostic testing, the performance of these assays was not evaluated in different contexts. Thus, this study aimed to assess the performance of Abbott SARS-CoV-2, Daan Gene, BGI and Sansure Biotech assays by using Composite Reference Standard (CRS). The study was conducted at the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) from December 1 to 30/2020. Of the 164 nasopharyngeal samples were extracted by using a QIAamp RNA mini kit and Abbott DNA sample preparation system. Out of 164 samples, 59.1% were positive and 40.9% were negative by CRS. Sansure Biotech positivity was significantly low compared to CRS (p < 0.05). The overall agreement of the four assays compared to CRS was 96.3-100%. The performance of the four assays had almost comparable diagnostic performance, except for a low positive rate of Sansure Biotech assay. Hence, Sansure Biotech assay [Research Use Only (RUO)] needs further verification on its use in Ethiopia. Finally an additional study should be considered for evaluating assays with respective manufacturer claims.

摘要

自 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)爆发以来,世界各地已经开发出许多商业核酸扩增检测(NAAT),并已成为标准方法。尽管已经迅速开发并应用了几种检测方法进行实验室诊断检测,但这些检测方法在不同的情况下的性能尚未得到评估。因此,本研究旨在使用综合参考标准(CRS)评估 Abbott SARS-CoV-2、Daan Gene、BGI 和 Sansure Biotech 检测方法的性能。该研究于 2020 年 12 月 1 日至 30 日在埃塞俄比亚公共卫生研究所(EPHI)进行。用 QIAamp RNA 迷你试剂盒和 Abbott DNA 样品制备系统从 164 个鼻咽样品中提取。在 164 个样本中,59.1%为阳性,40.9%为阴性。与 CRS 相比,Sansure Biotech 的阳性率明显较低(p < 0.05)。与 CRS 相比,四种检测方法的总体一致性为 96.3-100%。除了 Sansure Biotech 检测方法的阳性率较低外,这四种检测方法的诊断性能几乎相当。因此,Sansure Biotech 检测方法(仅供研究使用)需要在埃塞俄比亚进一步验证其使用情况。最后,应该考虑进行额外的研究来评估具有各自制造商声明的检测方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4234/9700788/7bf85e6c41be/41598_2022_24411_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

3
Comparative Performance of Four Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Virus.
Clin Lab. 2021 Jul 1;67(7). doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2020.201025.
4
5
Clinical Performance and Analytical Sensitivity of Three SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Tests.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Feb 26;104(4):1516-1518. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-1484.
6
Evaluation of three extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays: A feasible alternative approach with low technical requirements.
J Virol Methods. 2021 May;291:114086. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114086. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
9
Performance of High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Compared to Nucleic Acid Testing.
Lab Med. 2023 Mar 7;54(2):e54-e57. doi: 10.1093/labmed/lmac107.
10
Comparative analysis of point-of-care, high-throughput and laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs).
J Virol Methods. 2021 May;291:114102. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114102. Epub 2021 Feb 16.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
COVID-19 diagnosis in the emergency department: seeing the tree but losing the forest.
Emerg Med J. 2022 Jul;39(7):563. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2021-212219. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
2
COVID-19 Smart Diagnosis in the Emergency Department: all-in in Practice.
Expert Rev Respir Med. 2022 Mar;16(3):263-272. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2022.2049760. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
4
Comparative Performance of Four Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Virus.
Clin Lab. 2021 Jul 1;67(7). doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2020.201025.
5
False-positive and false-negative COVID-19 cases: respiratory prevention and management strategies, vaccination, and further perspectives.
Expert Rev Respir Med. 2021 Aug;15(8):993-1002. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2021.1917389. Epub 2021 Apr 25.
6
Analytical performance evaluation of five RT-PCR kits for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2021 Jan;35(1):e23643. doi: 10.1002/jcla.23643. Epub 2020 Oct 27.
8
Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between two PCR test kits for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2020 Oct;34(10):e23554. doi: 10.1002/jcla.23554. Epub 2020 Sep 25.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验