Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standard

22 Aug 2020

Abstract excerpt

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Share to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Share to SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 32804668
DOI: 10.1556/1886.2020.00017

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standardPMID 32804668Read ↗

Comparison of a Point-of-Care Assay and a High-Complexity Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNASemantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the Pluslife Mini Dock RHAM technology with Abbott ID Now and Cepheid GenXpert: A retrospective evaluation studySemantic proximity Read ↗

Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into accountSemantic proximity Read ↗

Rapid Evaluation of the Xpert ® Xpress CoV-2 Plus and Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV Plus TestsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of two commercial platforms and a laboratory developed test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNASemantic proximity Read ↗

Clinical evaluation of AusDiagnostics SARS-CoV-2 multiplex tandem PCR assaySemantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of eleven in vitro diagnostic assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNASemantic proximity Read ↗

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in close contacts of individuals with confirmed infection: performance and operational considerationsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal SpecimensSemantic proximity Read ↗

Comparative evaluation of GeneXpert and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A retrospective StudySemantic proximity Read ↗

rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: Analytical considerationsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Empleo de la RT-PCR en la detección del SARS-CoV-2Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.