Evaluation of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4 for the Detection of 16 Respiratory Viruses: A Comparative Study with the Allplex™ Respiratory Panel Assay 1/2/3 and BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Acute respiratory infections remain a major global public health concern affecting individuals across all ages. Accurate and rapid diagnosis of respiratory pathogens is crucial for effective patient management and infection control. Multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have gained prominence over conventional methods for routine viral detection in clinical laboratories owing to their enhanced sensitivity and specificity; however, comparative performance data for PowerChek™ RVP remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4, which detects 16 respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. <b>Methods</b>: Overall, 336 NPS specimens were analyzed using the PowerChek™ RVP, BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i>, and Allplex™ RP assays, with nucleic acid extraction performed using the Advansure™ E3 system. The performance metrics were calculated using two-by-two contingency tables. <b>Results</b>: Among 336 NPS specimens (232 positive, 104 negative), PowerChek™ RVP detected 226 positives with minimal discrepancies, showing high concordance with BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i> (accuracy 94.6%, kappa 0.843-1.000). Fifteen discordant cases were identified in this study. Eleven could not be sequenced because of amplification failure and most had high Ct values (>30). Sequencing of four samples confirmed concordance with BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i> and PowerChek™ RVP, whereas Allplex™ RP showed false-negative results. <b>Conclusions</b>: The PowerChek™ RVP assay demonstrated a high level of relative sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, diagnostic predictive values and strong concordance with comparable reference assays in identifying its targets. This assay is a reliable and efficient diagnostic tool for clinical laboratories to facilitate the accurate identification of respiratory pathogens.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2025-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212713
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Respiratory viral infections research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.35
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4 for the Detection of 16 Respiratory Viruses: A Comparative Study with the Allplex™ Respiratory Panel Assay 1/2/3 and BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus

Sook-Won Ryu, Jong‐Han Lee, Hyeongyu Lee, Rokeya Akter
1 citations
Diagnostics
Respiratory viral infections research
1.35
article

Evaluation of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4 for the Detection of 16 Respiratory Viruses: A Comparative Study with the Allplex™ Respiratory Panel Assay 1/2/3 and BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus

Sook-Won Ryu, Jong‐Han Lee, Hyeongyu Lee, Rokeya Akter
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Acute respiratory infections remain a major global public health concern affecting individuals across all ages. Accurate and rapid diagnosis of respiratory pathogens is crucial for effective patient management and infection control. Multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have gained prominence over conventional methods for routine viral detection in clinical laboratories owing to their enhanced sensitivity and specificity; however, comparative performance data for PowerChek™ RVP remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the PowerChek™ Respiratory Virus Panel 1/2/3/4, which detects 16 respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. <b>Methods</b>: Overall, 336 NPS specimens were analyzed using the PowerChek™ RVP, BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i>, and Allplex™ RP assays, with nucleic acid extraction performed using the Advansure™ E3 system. The performance metrics were calculated using two-by-two contingency tables. <b>Results</b>: Among 336 NPS specimens (232 positive, 104 negative), PowerChek™ RVP detected 226 positives with minimal discrepancies, showing high concordance with BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i> (accuracy 94.6%, kappa 0.843-1.000). Fifteen discordant cases were identified in this study. Eleven could not be sequenced because of amplification failure and most had high Ct values (>30). Sequencing of four samples confirmed concordance with BioFire<sup>®</sup> RP 2.1<i>plus</i> and PowerChek™ RVP, whereas Allplex™ RP showed false-negative results. <b>Conclusions</b>: The PowerChek™ RVP assay demonstrated a high level of relative sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, diagnostic predictive values and strong concordance with comparable reference assays in identifying its targets. This assay is a reliable and efficient diagnostic tool for clinical laboratories to facilitate the accurate identification of respiratory pathogens.

DiagnosticsVol. 15(21)
Kangwon National University (KR), Yonsei University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Respiratory viral infections research
1.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.