ArticleBMC infectious diseases2006
Automated extraction protocol for quantification of SARS-coronavirus RNA in serum: an evaluation study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Multiple RNA Extraction Protocols for Chikungunya Virus Screening inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Role of Laboratory Medicine in SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics. Lessons Learned from a Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: A Diagnostic Challenge.Measurement : journal of the International Measurement Confederation · 2021Article
- Performance evaluation of the Maxwell 16 System for extraction of influenza virus RNA from diverse samples.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously developed a test for the diagnosis and prognostic assessment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) based on the detection of the SARS-coronavirus RNA in serum by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of automating the serum RNA extraction procedure in order to increase the throughput of the assay.
methodsAn automated nucleic acid extraction platform using the MagNA Pure LC instrument (Roche Diagnostics) was evaluated. We developed a modified protocol in compliance with the recommended biosafety guidelines from the World Health Organization based on the use of the MagNA Pure total nucleic acid large volume isolation kit for the extraction of SARS-coronavirus RNA. The modified protocol was compared with a column-based extraction kit (QIAamp viral RNA mini kit, Qiagen) for quantitative performance, analytical sensitivity and precision.
resultsThe newly developed automated protocol was shown to be free from carry-over contamination and have comparable performance with other standard protocols and kits designed for the MagNA Pure LC instrument. However, the automated method was found to be less sensitive, less precise and led to consistently lower serum SARS-coronavirus concentrations when compared with the column-based extraction method.
conclusionAs the diagnostic efficiency and prognostic value of the serum SARS-CoV RNA RT-PCR test is critically associated with the analytical sensitivity and quantitative performance contributed both by the RNA extraction and RT-PCR components of the test, we recommend the use of the column-based manual RNA extraction method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.