How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs? Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory

Here, we retrospectively analyzed the comparative results of 182 paired dry nasopharyngeal swabs tested by Abbott ID NOW and nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport medium by real-time RT-PCR methods. While the overall agreement was 96.2%, we found that of 15 samples that were tested positive with R...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thwe, Phyu M., Ren, Ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Inc. 2020
Materias:
Virology
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7334653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32673978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115123
Descripción
Sumario:Here, we retrospectively analyzed the comparative results of 182 paired dry nasopharyngeal swabs tested by Abbott ID NOW and nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport medium by real-time RT-PCR methods. While the overall agreement was 96.2%, we found that of 15 samples that were tested positive with RT-PCR methods, 7 were missed by ID NOW, resulting in a false-negative rate of 47%.

Ejemplares similares