2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115536
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abbott ID now COVID-19 assay performance: a year in review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results are in keeping with previously published data which have shown sensitivity with respect to RT-PCR of 70.3-98.0%, and specificity of 95.3-100% [ 8 , 10 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 26 ]. A Cochrane review published in March 2021 included 12 studies with an overall prevalence of 634/1853 (34.2%), and reported sensitivity 78.6% (95% CI: 73.7-82.8%) and specificity 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7-99.9%), although most studies did not use dry nasal swabs as per manufacturer IFU.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our results are in keeping with previously published data which have shown sensitivity with respect to RT-PCR of 70.3-98.0%, and specificity of 95.3-100% [ 8 , 10 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 26 ]. A Cochrane review published in March 2021 included 12 studies with an overall prevalence of 634/1853 (34.2%), and reported sensitivity 78.6% (95% CI: 73.7-82.8%) and specificity 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7-99.9%), although most studies did not use dry nasal swabs as per manufacturer IFU.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Results can be integrated automatically with hospital records which saves time and error by avoiding manual recording, and allows easy evaluation and audit. The reported performance of ID NOW in the literature to date has mostly come from small studies across a range of settings, with sensitivities ranging from 55-98% and specificities 95-100% when using RT-PCR as the gold standard [ 8 , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] ]. Sensitivity approaches 100% when PCR results with a cycle threshold (Ct) value >30, suggesting a lower viral load, are excluded [ 15 , [19] , [20] , [21] ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…KSLM and KDCA recommend real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCR as a molecular test for diagnosing COVID-19. In addition to rRT-PCR, there are various isothermal amplification methods, including loop-mediated isothermal amplification and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-based tests [ 2 - 7 ]. However, meta-analyses of these methods revealed insufficient performance or insufficient data; therefore, they should be used with caution in Korea at present [ 3 - 7 ].…”
Section: Molecular Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the day of transplantation, an NP sample from the recipient tested negative for COVID using isothermal amplification (Abbott ID NOW, Abbott; target: RdRp) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 NAAT assay) [ 9 , 12 , 13 ].…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%