Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 caused a global COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating rapid and accurate diagnostic tools, especially in resource-limited settings. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the fully automated Gene Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to conventional real-time RT-PCR (Gold standard) using nasopharyngeal swabs from 105 suspected COVID-19 patients at BITID, Bangladesh from December 20 to December 21. Results: Of the 105 samples, 65 (61.9%) were RT-PCR positive and 40 (38.1%) were negative. The Gene Xpert Xpress detected 62/65 positives (sensitivity 95.4%) and 32/40 negatives (Specificity 80.0%) yielding an overall accuracy of 89.5%. Discordant results were mainly attributed to differences in limit of detection and Ct value interpretation. Conclusion: The Gene Xpert Xpress system demonstrated high sensitivity, rapid results (~45 minutes) minimal training requirements and suitability for decentralized settings, making it a valuable tool for timely SARS-CoV-2 detection and clinical decision-making in emergency situations and low-resource environments. IAHS Medical Journal Vol 9(1), June 2026; 4-8
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: