Comparison of the NeuMoDX, Diasorin Simplexa, Cepheid and Roche CDC SARS-CoV 2 EUA assays using nasopharyngeal/nasal swabs in universal transport media (UTM) and sputum and tracheal aspirates
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In March 2019 the outbreak of SARS-CoV 2 was officially defined as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and shortly after, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) molecular testing for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from NP swabs. Since then, EUA with relaxed regulations were granted to numerous manufacturers and clinical microbiology laboratories to implement in-house testing assays with nasopharyngeal swabs (NP) and subsequently additional specimen types. Because of supply chain shortages leading to competition for reagents, sustaining any significant volume of testing soon became problematic. As a countermeasure, within several weeks the Henry Ford Microbiology Laboratory validated 4 different rtPCR assays and multiple specimen types using NeuMoDX, Diasorin Simplexa, Cepheid and Roche platforms. The purpose of this study was to analyze the analytic sensitivity of these rtPCR assays with NP/nasal swabs and sputum/tracheal aspirates. Qualitative analytic agreement between the 4 platforms for NP/nasal swabs ranged 95% - 100% overall with no statistically significant difference in threshold cT values. Similar results were obtained with the sputum/tracheal aspirates. These data demonstrate the high accuracy and reproducibility in detection of SARS-CoV 2 between the rtPCR assays performed on 4 different platforms with numerous specimen types.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.26.118190: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses of cT values from DIA, NDX, and GS were done in comparison to cT values from the CDC assay including regression analysis, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Pearsons r), and Chi-square were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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).
Re…SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.26.118190: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses of cT values from DIA, NDX, and GS were done in comparison to cT values from the CDC assay including regression analysis, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Pearsons r), and Chi-square were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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:- No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
