PMID 31888631 · 2019BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
we found a high degree of agreement on negative results (93% specificity), but only reasonable agreement on positive results (53% sensitivity).
Use cases · IVD & med-tech
Clinical buyers do not change a validated method on a promise.
Diagnostics and clinical devices are replaced slowly and for stated reasons: a false-positive rate that costs confirmatory work, a sensitivity floor that misses early cases, a turnaround that does not fit the pathway, a result that cannot be reproduced across sites. Those reasons appear in validation studies, method-comparison papers and clinical evaluations long before they appear in a tender.
Opportunity · evidence-based
- Who?
- Laura L Vieira, Edimárlei G Valério and colleagues, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019
- What problem?
- Sensitivity, in their own words (highlighted).
- Why your solution?
- If your group B streptococcus assay has data that closes that sensitivity gap, the comparison is theirs to make. Potential fit.
- Why reach out?
- They measured the gap themselves, with figures. Open with your own method-comparison data on the same question.
Open the paper ↗
The opening
They have already written it down.
This is the segment where evidence beats enthusiasm, so it is the segment where reading the literature properly is worth the most. The group that published the shortfall has already done your needs analysis and shown its working.
The language to search
The language a clinical shortfall is written in, which is not the language a lab-reagent complaint uses:
accuracyspecificitysensitivityreproducibilitystandardizationturnaround
Categories we extract and verify, not keywords we grep for. A sentence saying a feared problem did not occur is not a problem, and the verification pass is there to drop it.
Across all segments today: 14,860 researchers with a limitation in print, 30,404 verified quotes, and 18,843 researchers whose instruments and reagents we can name.
How the work goes
Three moves, in order.
01
Follow the method-comparison literature
Comparison and validation studies name the assays and platforms under test and report where each fell short. That is the clearest public statement of a clinical need there is, and it is searchable.
02
Separate adoption from opinion
We will tell you which groups publish with a given assay and what those groups reported about their own results. We will not tell you that a competitor's product is bad: an adverse finding in one study is evidence about that study, and a claim built on it is one a regulator or a lawyer can take apart.
03
Work the site, not only the specialty
Clinical adoption is site by site. The publication record names the institution, so you can see which centres are active in a method and which are evaluating alternatives.
See it on your own catalogue.
We run the search live against the researchers you sell to, and you decide from what is there.
Other segments: Reagents & antibodies · Instruments · CRO & CDMO services