Comparison of diagnostic efficacy of the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay and the BGI real-time fluorescent RT-PCR kit for the RT-PCR-based detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2

IF 0.2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jelena Stojčević-Maletić, I. Barjaktarović, Katarina Bačulov, V. Čabarkapa, V. Sakač, Z. Gojković
{"title":"Comparison of diagnostic efficacy of the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay and the BGI real-time fluorescent RT-PCR kit for the RT-PCR-based detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2","authors":"Jelena Stojčević-Maletić, I. Barjaktarović, Katarina Bačulov, V. Čabarkapa, V. Sakač, Z. Gojković","doi":"10.2298/sarh230201074s","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction/Objective. Based on the World Health Organization guidelines, the current \"gold standard\" to diagnose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is reverse transcription-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The objective of this study was to compare and analyze the detection performance of two different authorized SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection assays: the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay and the BGI Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR (BGI) kit. Methods. Our study included 384 randomly selected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the BGI kit for detecting SARS-CoV-2. All patients were adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Results. We found that the ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the BGI assay. The positive percent agreement was 98.3% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 95.7-99.3%), while Cohen?s Kappa coefficient (Kappa) was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91), indicating a strong level of agreement between these two tests. The negative percent agreement was 85.1% (95% CI: 78.3-90%), while 5.47% of cases were false negative using the BGI test to detect SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity of the BGI test compared to Abbott was 91.73% (95% CI: 87.64-94.81%), and the specificity of the BGI test was 96.77% (95% CI: 91.95-99.11%). Conclusion. The Abbott kit showed a bit better diagnostic performance, and due to possible false negative results using the BGI test, we recommend complete testing with the ACOV test.","PeriodicalId":22263,"journal":{"name":"Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/sarh230201074s","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/Objective. Based on the World Health Organization guidelines, the current "gold standard" to diagnose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is reverse transcription-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The objective of this study was to compare and analyze the detection performance of two different authorized SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection assays: the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay and the BGI Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR (BGI) kit. Methods. Our study included 384 randomly selected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the BGI kit for detecting SARS-CoV-2. All patients were adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Results. We found that the ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the BGI assay. The positive percent agreement was 98.3% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 95.7-99.3%), while Cohen?s Kappa coefficient (Kappa) was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91), indicating a strong level of agreement between these two tests. The negative percent agreement was 85.1% (95% CI: 78.3-90%), while 5.47% of cases were false negative using the BGI test to detect SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity of the BGI test compared to Abbott was 91.73% (95% CI: 87.64-94.81%), and the specificity of the BGI test was 96.77% (95% CI: 91.95-99.11%). Conclusion. The Abbott kit showed a bit better diagnostic performance, and due to possible false negative results using the BGI test, we recommend complete testing with the ACOV test.
雅培实时SARS-CoV-2检测试剂盒与华大基因实时荧光RT-PCR试剂盒检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒-2的诊断效果比较
介绍/目标。根据世界卫生组织的指导方针,目前诊断SARS-CoV-2的“金标准”是逆转录-定量实时聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)。本研究的目的是比较和分析两种不同授权的SARS-CoV-2核酸检测方法:雅培实时SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV)测定法和华大实时荧光RT-PCR (BGI)试剂盒的检测性能。方法。我们的研究纳入了384份随机选择的鼻咽和口咽拭子,这些拭子之前接受了ACOV检测,随后接受了华大基因试剂盒检测SARS-CoV-2。所有患者均为有症状或疑似2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的成年人。结果。我们发现ACOV检测比华大基因检测检测到更多的COVID-19感染病例。阳性一致性百分比为98.3%(95%置信区间(95% CI): 95.7-99.3%),而Cohen?s的Kappa系数(Kappa)为0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91),表明这两个检验之间具有很强的一致性。阴性符合率为85.1% (95% CI: 78.3-90%),而使用华大基因检测SARS-CoV-2的病例中有5.47%为假阴性。与Abbott相比,BGI检测的敏感性为91.73% (95% CI: 87.64-94.81%),特异性为96.77% (95% CI: 91.95-99.11%)。结论。雅培试剂盒显示出更好的诊断性能,由于使用华大基因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
Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo
Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Srpski Arhiv Za Celokupno Lekarstvo (Serbian Archives of Medicine) is the Journal of the Serbian Medical Society, founded in 1872, which publishes articles by the members of the Serbian Medical Society, subscribers, as well as members of other associations of medical and related fields. The Journal publishes: original articles, communications, case reports, review articles, current topics, articles of history of medicine, articles for practitioners, articles related to the language of medicine, articles on medical ethics (clinical ethics, publication ethics, regulatory standards in medicine), congress and scientific meeting reports, professional news, book reviews, texts for "In memory of...", i.e. In memoriam and Promemoria columns, as well as comments and letters to the Editorial Board. All manuscripts under consideration in the Serbian Archives of Medicine may not be offered or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Articles must not have been published elsewhere (in part or in full).
×
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