ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Comparison of four commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 in China.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance Analysis of Commercial SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection Assays: Implications for Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, and Diagnostic Response Time.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Endogenous Biomarkers Analysis and False-Negative Results for SARSCov2 Using two Commercial RT-PCR Diagnostic Kits.Iranian journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of different contact patterns on disease transmission: Taking COVID-19 as a case.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Method Applicability and Virus Occurrence in Food and Food Packaging.Food technology and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Performance comparison of two nucleic acid amplification systems for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A multi-center study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Differential gene expression analysis of common target genes for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using real time-PCR.AMB Express · 2022Article
- Radiological Findings Increased the Successful of COVID-19 Diagnosis in Hospitalized Patients Suspected of Respiratory Viral Infection but with a Negative First SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Result.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic sensitivity of RT-PCR assays on nasopharyngeal specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2022Review
- The Comparative Analysis of Two RT-qPCR Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Reveals a Higher Risk of False-Negative Diagnosis in Samples with High Quantification Cycles for Viral and Internal Genes.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 variants: Impact on biological and clinical outcome.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of five commercial COVID-19 qRT PCR kits used in India.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparison of four commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 in China.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostic kits using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Kits I-IV approved by the State Drug Administration of China were selected, and the detection targets were ORF1ab gene and N gene. Specificity was evaluated by detecting other respiratory viruses. The sensitivity and batch effect of each kit were evaluated by testing 10-fold dilutions of RNA. Clinical application was verified by testing nasopharyngeal swab and sputum specimens from COVID-19 patients. Among the 78 cases infected by other respiratory viruses, no amplification curve was observed using these four COVID-19 RT-PCR kits. The minimum detection limits of kits I-IV were 10
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.