COMPARISON OF ABBOTT REAL TIME SARS-COV-2 ASSAY AND LIFERIVER NOVEL CORONAVIRUS REAL TIME MULTIPLEX KIT FOR THE RT-PCR BASED DETECTION OF SARS-COV-2 FROM NASOPHARYNGEAL SWABS.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jelena Stojčević-Maletić, Iva Barjaktarović, Mirjana Đerić, Velibor Čabarkapa, Vladimir Petrović, Aleksandra Patić, Slobodanka Bogdanović-Vasić
{"title":"COMPARISON OF ABBOTT REAL TIME SARS-COV-2 ASSAY AND LIFERIVER NOVEL CORONAVIRUS REAL TIME MULTIPLEX KIT FOR THE RT-PCR BASED DETECTION OF SARS-COV-2 FROM NASOPHARYNGEAL SWABS.","authors":"Jelena Stojčević-Maletić, Iva Barjaktarović, Mirjana Đerić, Velibor Čabarkapa, Vladimir Petrović, Aleksandra Patić, Slobodanka Bogdanović-Vasić","doi":"10.20471/acc.2024.63.02.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to compare performance of two authorized tests, the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay (Abbott Molecular Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) and Liferiver Novel Coronavirus Real Time Multiplex RT-PCR (Liferiver 2019-nCoV) kit (BioVendor Group, Brno, Czech Republic), and to determine whether the selection of targeted genes has an impact on test specificity. We included 105 nasopharyngeal swabs from adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aged from 26 to 91 years, previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the Liferiver 2019-nCoV. In this comparative analysis, we found that the ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the Liferiver 2019-nCoV assay. The Liferiver 2019-nCoV kit showed a high level of agreement with the ACOV assay. The positive percent agreement was 88.89% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 77.42%-100.0%), and the kappa coefficient (kappa) was 0.901 (95% CI: 0.817-0.985). The negative percent agreement was 94.12% (95% CI: 89.74%-98.50%), while 4.76% of SARS-CoV-2 cases were false-negative using the Liferiver test. However, due to the possible false-negative results using the Liferiver 2019-nCOV test, we recommend complete testing with the ACOV assay.</p>","PeriodicalId":7072,"journal":{"name":"Acta clinica Croatica","volume":"63 2","pages":"275-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11912847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta clinica Croatica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2024.63.02.3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare performance of two authorized tests, the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay (Abbott Molecular Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) and Liferiver Novel Coronavirus Real Time Multiplex RT-PCR (Liferiver 2019-nCoV) kit (BioVendor Group, Brno, Czech Republic), and to determine whether the selection of targeted genes has an impact on test specificity. We included 105 nasopharyngeal swabs from adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), aged from 26 to 91 years, previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the Liferiver 2019-nCoV. In this comparative analysis, we found that the ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the Liferiver 2019-nCoV assay. The Liferiver 2019-nCoV kit showed a high level of agreement with the ACOV assay. The positive percent agreement was 88.89% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 77.42%-100.0%), and the kappa coefficient (kappa) was 0.901 (95% CI: 0.817-0.985). The negative percent agreement was 94.12% (95% CI: 89.74%-98.50%), while 4.76% of SARS-CoV-2 cases were false-negative using the Liferiver test. However, due to the possible false-negative results using the Liferiver 2019-nCOV test, we recommend complete testing with the ACOV assay.

rt-pcr法检测鼻咽拭子中sars-cov-2的雅培实时检测试剂盒与liferver新型冠状病毒实时多重检测试剂盒的比较
本研究的目的是比较两种授权检测的性能,即雅培实时SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV)检测(雅培分子公司,北芝加哥,伊利诺伊州,美国)和liferriver新型冠状病毒实时多重RT-PCR (liferriver 2019-nCoV)试剂盒(BioVendor集团,布尔诺,捷克共和国),并确定目标基因的选择是否对检测特异性有影响。我们纳入了105份来自有症状或疑似2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的成年人的鼻咽拭子,年龄在26岁至91岁之间,之前接受了ACOV检测,随后接受了liferriver 2019- ncov检测。在本对比分析中,我们发现ACOV法比lifriver法检出更多的COVID-19感染病例。lifriver 2019-nCoV试剂盒与ACOV检测结果高度一致。阳性符合率为88.89%(95%置信区间(95% CI): 77.42% ~ 100.0%), kappa系数(kappa)为0.901 (95% CI: 0.817 ~ 0.985)。阴性符合率为94.12% (95% CI: 89.74% ~ 98.50%),而使用liferriver试验的SARS-CoV-2病例为4.76%的假阴性。然而,由于使用liferriver 2019-nCOV检测可能出现假阴性结果,我们建议使用ACOV检测完成检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta clinica Croatica
Acta clinica Croatica 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
38
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Croatica is a peer reviewed general medical journal that publishes original articles that advance and improve medical science and practice and that serve the purpose of transfer of original and valuable information to journal readers. Acta Clinica Croatica is published in English four times a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信