Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33053675›Full record

ArticleGenes2020

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Two RT-qPCR Protocols for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Performed in an Automated Workflow.

Gustavo Barcelos Barra, Ticiane Henriques Santa Rita, Pedro Góes Mesquita, Rafael Henriques Jácomo, Lídia Freire Abdalla Nery

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. No Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Wild Mink (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. SARS-CoV-2: The Monster Causes COVID-19.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Olfactory Bulb and Amygdala Gene Expression Changes in Subjects Dying with COVID-19.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gustavo Barcelos BarraResearch and development department, Sabin diagnostic medicine, Brasilia 70.632, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2136-3471
Ticiane Henriques Santa RitaResearch and development department, Sabin diagnostic medicine, Brasilia 70.632, Brazil.
Pedro Góes MesquitaResearch and development department, Sabin diagnostic medicine, Brasilia 70.632, Brazil.
Rafael Henriques JácomoResearch and development department, Sabin diagnostic medicine, Brasilia 70.632, Brazil.
Lídia Freire Abdalla NeryResearch and development department, Sabin diagnostic medicine, Brasilia 70.632, Brazil.
Sabin Medicina Diagnostica (Brazil) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

WHO declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. The establishment of standardized RT-qPCR protocols for respiratory secretions testing, as well as sharing of specimens, data, and information became critical. Here, we investigate the analytical performance of two interim RT-qPCR protocols (Charité and Centers for Disease Control (CDC)) for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 executed in a fully automated platform. Analytical specificity, PCR amplification efficiency, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection), and cross-reactivity were evaluated using contrived samples. The on-going accuracy was evaluated by retrospective analysis of our test results database (real clinical samples). N1, E, and a modified version of RdRP assays presented adequate analytical specificity, amplification efficiency, and analytical sensitivity using contrived samples. The three assays were applied to all individuals who requested the SARS-CoV-2 molecular test assay in our laboratory and it was observed that N1 gave more positive results than E, and E gave more positive results than RdRP (modified). The RdRP and E were removed from the test and its final version, based on N1 assay only, was applied to 30,699 Brazilian individuals (from 19 February 2020 to 8 May 2020). The aggregated test results available in the database were also presented.

Indexed as

Automation, LaboratoryClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19 TestingCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansLimit of DetectionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionCOVID-19 VaccinesRT-qPCRSARS-CoV-2validation

Identifiers

PMID33053675
PMCPMC7599812
OpenAlexW3092062136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.