Your browser doesn't support javascript.
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.
Thwe, Phyu M; Ren, Ping.
  • Thwe PM; Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
  • Ren P; Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: piren@utmb.edu.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 98(2): 115123, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-625039
ABSTRACT
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%.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Nasopharynx / Coronavirus Infections / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Female / Humans / Male Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Year: 2020 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Nasopharynx / Coronavirus Infections / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Female / Humans / Male Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Year: 2020 Document Type: Article