• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Evaluation of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits: a comparative study.新型冠状病毒检测试剂盒诊断性能评估:一项对比研究。
Beni Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. 2023;12(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s43088-023-00360-1. Epub 2023 Feb 12.
2
[Evaluation of the Rapid Antigen Detection Kit with the Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Samples].[用于呼吸道样本中检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2的快速抗原检测试剂盒与聚合酶链反应的评估]
Mikrobiyol Bul. 2022 Apr;56(2):263-273. doi: 10.5578/mb.20229806.
3
Comparison of a novel antigen detection test with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay for laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.新型抗原检测试验与逆转录聚合酶链反应检测法用于 SARS-CoV-2 感染实验室诊断的比较。
Infection. 2023 Feb;51(1):91-96. doi: 10.1007/s15010-022-01832-9. Epub 2022 May 5.
4
[Evaluation of a Visually-Read Rapid Antigen Test Kit (SGA V-Chek) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus].[用于检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒的视觉读取快速抗原检测试剂盒(SGA V-Chek)的评估]
Mikrobiyol Bul. 2021 Jul;55(3):461-464. doi: 10.5578/mb.20219815.
5
Comparative Evaluation of Cartridge-Based Abbott ID NOW Test With Probe-Based Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.基于试剂盒的雅培ID NOW检测与基于探针的实时逆转录聚合酶链反应检测法对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)检测的比较评估
Cureus. 2022 Feb 21;14(2):e22470. doi: 10.7759/cureus.22470. eCollection 2022 Feb.
6
Lack of sensitivity of an IVD/CE-labelled kit targeting the S gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2.针对 SARS-CoV-2 的 S 基因检测的 IVD/CE 标记试剂盒缺乏灵敏度。
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct;26(10):1417.e1-1417.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.036. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
7
An Evaluation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Three COVID-19 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Kits Compared to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Among Clinical Samples.三种新型冠状病毒肺炎快速免疫层析检测试剂盒与实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(rRT-PCR)相比在临床样本中的敏感性和特异性评估
Cureus. 2024 Jun 27;16(6):e63294. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63294. eCollection 2024 Jun.
8
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 virus detection using the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test on Abbott M2000 Real-Time System: a cross-sectional study.使用雅培M2000实时系统上的Xpert Xpress快速分子检测法检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒的比较:一项横断面研究。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023 May 10;85(6):2559-2563. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000802. eCollection 2023 Jun.
9
Performance Evaluation of Different RT-PCR Kits for the Direct Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Preheated Specimens.用于直接检测预热样本中新型冠状病毒的不同逆转录聚合酶链反应试剂盒的性能评估
J Lab Physicians. 2023 Jan 30;15(3):383-391. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1760752. eCollection 2023 Sep.
10
Performance verification of five commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2.五种用于 SARS-CoV-2 的商业 RT-qPCR 诊断试剂盒的性能验证。
Clin Chim Acta. 2022 Jan 15;525:46-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.12.004. Epub 2021 Dec 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.快速抗原检测试验与实时逆转录-聚合酶链反应检测 SARS-CoV-2 的关联:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Public Health. 2023 Aug 1;68:1605452. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605452. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative performances of seven quantitative Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction assays (RT-qPCR) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in samples from individuals suspected of COVID-19 in São Paulo, Brazil.七种定量逆转录聚合酶链反应检测法(RT-qPCR)在巴西圣保罗对疑似新型冠状病毒肺炎患者样本中检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2感染的比较性能
J Clin Virol Plus. 2021 Jun;1(1):100012. doi: 10.1016/j.jcvp.2021.100012. Epub 2021 Apr 5.
2
The impact of sample processing on the rapid antigen detection test for SARS-CoV-2: Virus inactivation, VTM selection, and sample preservation.样本处理对SARS-CoV-2快速抗原检测试验的影响:病毒灭活、病毒运输培养基选择及样本保存
Biosaf Health. 2021 Oct;3(5):238-243. doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2021.09.001. Epub 2021 Sep 9.
3
Comparison of FTD SARS-CoV-2 Assay and RealStar RT-PCR kit 1.0 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.FTD SARS-CoV-2 检测试剂盒与 RealStar RT-PCR 试剂盒 1.0 用于检测 SARS-CoV-2 的比较。
J Virol Methods. 2021 Dec;298:114276. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114276. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
4
Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV (COVID-19): early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic size estimates.新型冠状病毒 2019-nCoV (COVID-19):流行病学参数和疫情规模的早期估计。
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021 Jul 19;376(1829):20200265. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0265. Epub 2021 May 31.
5
Antigen tests for COVID-19.新型冠状病毒肺炎抗原检测
Biophys Physicobiol. 2021 Feb 10;18:28-39. doi: 10.2142/biophysico.bppb-v18.004. eCollection 2021.
6
Commercialized diagnostic technologies to combat SARS-CoV2: Advantages and disadvantages.商业化诊断技术在抗击 SARS-CoV2 方面的优缺点。
Talanta. 2021 Apr 1;225:121898. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121898. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
7
Comparison analysis of different swabs and transport mediums suitable for SARS-CoV-2 testing following shortages.不同拭子和转运介质在短缺后对 SARS-CoV-2 检测的比较分析
J Virol Methods. 2020 Nov;285:113947. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113947. Epub 2020 Aug 8.
8
Evaluation of rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.SARS-CoV-2 病毒快速抗原检测评估。
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104500. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104500. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
9
Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.快速抗原检测试验在 COVID-19 诊断中的一线检测性能不佳。
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104455. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104455. Epub 2020 May 21.
10
Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Cepheid Xpert Xpress 和 Abbott ID Now 与 Roche cobas 用于 SARS-CoV-2 快速检测的比较。
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104428. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104428. Epub 2020 May 13.

新型冠状病毒检测试剂盒诊断性能评估:一项对比研究。

Evaluation of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits: a comparative study.

作者信息

Sherif Basma, Hafez Hala M, Abdelhalim Marwa Ramadan, Elwafa Menna Allah Zakaria Abou, Wahba Nancy Samir, Hamdy Perihan

机构信息

Clinical Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Beni Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. 2023;12(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s43088-023-00360-1. Epub 2023 Feb 12.

DOI:10.1186/s43088-023-00360-1
PMID:36819293
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9924908/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has hit many countries worldwide. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial to reduce disease burden. Many commercial kits have become available, but their performance needs to be assessed. This study aimed at evaluation of the diagnostic performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Rapid Antigen detection (RAD) kits for detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Five hundred sixty-four Nasopharyngeal swab specimens sent to Molecular Laboratory at Ain Shams University Specialized Hospital for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing collected from 564 subjects who attended the outpatient clinic for sample collection were randomly selected. All samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR using Viasure. Each time a recent kit was introduced, 94 samples, previously tested using Viasure, were used to determine the performance characteristics of the recent kit in comparison with Viasure, including Fast Track Diagnostics (FTD), DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2, ID NOW COVID-19 assay and Artron COVID-19 Antigen test kit.

RESULTS

Upon comparison, FTD, DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and ID Now showed positive percent agreement, 100%, 100%, 97.7%, 100%, 100% negative percent agreement, 86%, 100%, 98.8%, 90%, 100%, respectively. The RAD kit results, when compared with RT-PCR, showed high sensitivity at cycle threshold (Ct) < 30, low sensitivity at Ct ≥ 30, while specificity was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Fast track, DNA Technology, QiaPrep, Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and ID Now showed good diagnostic performance. Positive RAD rule in SARS-CoV-2 infection, however negative results should be correlated with clinical condition and molecular testing.

摘要

背景

2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行已席卷全球许多国家。快速准确的诊断对于减轻疾病负担至关重要。许多商业试剂盒已上市,但它们的性能需要评估。本研究旨在评估实时聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)和快速抗原检测(RAD)试剂盒检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)的诊断性能。从564名到门诊进行样本采集的受试者中随机选取了564份送往艾因夏姆斯大学专科医院分子实验室进行SARS-CoV-2 PCR检测的鼻咽拭子标本。所有样本均使用Viasure进行SARS-CoV-2 PCR检测。每次引入新试剂盒时,都会使用94份先前用Viasure检测过的样本,以确定新试剂盒与Viasure相比的性能特征,包括快速通道诊断(FTD)、DNA技术、QiaPrep、Xpress SARS-CoV-2、ID NOW COVID-19检测和雅创COVID-19抗原检测试剂盒。

结果

经比较,FTD、DNA技术、QiaPrep、Xpress SARS-CoV-2和ID Now的阳性百分一致性分别为100%、100%、97.7%、100%、100%,阴性百分一致性分别为86%、100%、98.8%、90%、100%。与RT-PCR相比,RAD试剂盒结果在循环阈值(Ct)<30时显示高灵敏度,在Ct≥30时显示低灵敏度,而特异性为100%。

结论

快速通道、DNA技术、QiaPrep、Xpress SARS-CoV-2和ID Now显示出良好的诊断性能。然而,SARS-CoV-2感染中RAD阳性结果可作为诊断依据,阴性结果应与临床情况和分子检测结果相结合。