Trial results so far have been mixed -- about equal between benefit and no benefit.
None of those trials have been a well designed trial, but that happens at this stage. There are several good trials underway.
The analysis I posted was a retrospective review so even lower level of evidence, but does tell professionals to pump the breaks on use until we get better data as there may actually be harm.
I wouldn't be inclined to draw that conclusion on the basis of a single outlier study, but I do recognize that the profession has a specific code that it lives by and that you are much better positioned than I to know what the literature says.
What I don't really understand is why this thing has resulted in such an uprising in nationalism. Germany had a test developed as early as January, yet many other nations, including Britain and the US, decided to develop their own test instead. While there is an element of logic to that so that you avoid buying dodgy stuff, as the Spanish did with the test from Bioeasy, it does obviously add a delay to proceedings.
Testing capability is a matter of national security right now. Depending on another nation is unreliable in that:
a) if things get really bad, you almost certainly will get cut off in favor of their needs
b) you are likely going to end up buying whatever didn't pass their QA.
Now, licensing someone else's proven design is entirely different from a national security perspective. The problem is that private companies don't want to do it due to the profit motive. There are ways for the government to cure that, but they are bad politics (especially for, say, Tory and Republican governments).