When a new coronavirus pandemic began to spread across the globe, scientists scrambled to figure out how to quickly detect if a person was infected. Unfortunately, after several months of testing, it is clear that some tests are more reliable than others. In a new study at New York University, researchers analyzed tests developed by Abbott’s lab.
After comparing, the researchers found that other known detection methods were more accurate than the method, known as the ID NOW molecule COVID-19, was faster tested. They found that the ID NOW test that President Trump promoted at public briefings and used by the White House missed at least a third of the positive results.
The ID NOW test claims to take only 5 minutes to get results. Other trusted tests can take more than 45 minutes to more than three hours, which is still much faster than some of the earliest tests because they take longer. Still, the five-minute COVID-19 test is attractive, but only if it provides accurate results.
The study looked at more than 100 samples taken at Tisch Hospital, NYU Langone Medical Center. The researchers claim that the researchers followed instructions to use test kits, adhering to Abbott’s revised test notes after being criticized for false negative results.
Previously, test samples were stored in a solution prior to testing. Abbott claims that the false negative results may have been caused by the dilution of the sample, and instructed the testers to replace it with a dry nasal swab. This was supposed to improve the accuracy of the test, but the researchers found that when they used the new technology, the false negative results did not decrease and the false negative rate did not decrease and rose to nearly 50 percent.
The company criticized the study, saying it may have been incorrectly collected samples and that internal tests showed the test results were accurate.
“Once again, a study was conducted in the form of ID NOW, not in the way it was intended. It’s unclear whether the samples were properly tested, and we’re evaluating them further,” Scott Stoffel, a spokesman for the company, told Yahoo News in an email. “The results in this article are inconsistent with any experience with our use of the instrument. “
It is worth noting that the study, which has been published on the BioRxiv website, has not yet been peer-reviewed.