Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.055327: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: This study was approved by the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Whereas Rhoades et al. (3) found an overall high level of agreement between ID Now and the modified CDC assay, our findings highlight an …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.055327: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: This study was approved by the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Whereas Rhoades et al. (3) found an overall high level of agreement between ID Now and the modified CDC assay, our findings highlight an important limitation of the ID Now for low-level positives. While both studies evaluated nasopharyngeal swabs eluted in transport media, it is important to note that the EUA for ID NOW was recently updated to remove the indication for swabs in transport media (5). Our data support that the EUA was appropriately modified, as samples may become too dilute in VTM and low-level positives may falsely test negative. In contrast to batch testing and the higher complexity required for the cobas assay, both Xpert and ID Now offer shorter turnaround times and availability in near-patient settings. However, the two assays differ in throughput capacity and run time. Each ID Now platform can run only a single specimen at a time, with results available in 13 minutes or less. Xpert can be run on larger, random-access platforms that allow for significantly higher throughput, with results available in 45 minutes. Both assays are available for use in POC settings, which introduces both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, POC molecular testing delivers the shortest possible interval between sample collection and result, which can facilitate faster clinical decision-making. However, concerns related to assay performance, quality management, and safety in the POC setting still remain. Studies of POC molecular testing for influenza and respiratory syncytial ...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
