A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Performance of Abbott ID-Now rapid nucleic amplification test for laboratory identification of COVID-19 in asymptomatic emergency department patients. | LitMetric

Objective: We sought to evaluate the test characteristics of Abbott ID-Now as a screening tool compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for identification of COVID in an asymptomatic emergency department population.

Methods: We performed a prospective study enrolling a convenience sample of asymptomatic patients presenting to a single academic emergency department (ED) who received simultaneous testing with ID-Now and PCR per standardized ED protocols. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of ID-Now were calculated compared to PCR. Stratified analysis by cycle threshold (Ct) values was also performed, defined as high viral load (Ct < 33) and low viral load (Ct ≥ 33).

Results: A total of 3121 patients were enrolled, of whom 2895 had valid results for ID-Now and PCR. COVID prevalence was 2.6%. ID-Now had a sensitivity of 85.1% (95% CI 75.9% to 92.7%) and a specificity of 99.7% (99.5% to 99.9%). PPV and NPV were high at 87.5% (83.1% to 96.1%) and 99.6% (99.3% to 99.8%). Stratified analysis by low and high Ct values demonstrated reduction in sensitivity in patients with low viral loads: 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%) in low Ct value patients versus 58.3% (27.7% to 84.8%) in high Ct value patients.

Conclusions: ID-Now had excellent performance in asymptomatic ED patients with a low rate of false positives. Cycle threshold analysis suggests a relationship between viral load and ID-Now sensitivity. Given its speed and performance in this population, ID-Now should be considered an excellent tool to support clinical decision-making in ED populations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8716572PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12592DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

emergency department
12
abbott id-now
8
asymptomatic emergency
8
performance abbott
4
id-now
4
id-now rapid
4
rapid nucleic
4
nucleic amplification
4
amplification test
4
test laboratory
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!