ArticleScientific reports2021
Development and comparison of novel multiple cross displacement amplification (MCDA) assays with other nucleic acid amplification methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The new gold rush in clinical diagnostics: from standard laboratory assays to fast and accurate point-of-care (POC) methods.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Multiple cross displacement amplification (MCDA) for rapid detection of toxigenicMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Visual and fluorescent detection ofHeliyon · 2024Article
- One-pot MCDA-CRISPR-Cas-based detection platform for point-of-care testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Lateral Flow Assay for Hepatitis B Detection: A Review of Current and New Assays.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Aptamer-Based Strategies to Address Challenges in COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatments.Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Isothermal amplification-assisted diagnostics for COVID-19.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2022Review
- Diagnostic techniques for COVID-19: A mini-review.Journal of virological methods · 2022Review
- Dynamic changes of IgM and IgG antibodies in asymptomatic patients as an effective way to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Performance Evaluation of a Novel Ultrafast Molecular Diagnostic Device Integrated With Microfluidic Chips and Dual Temperature Modules.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Sensitive and visual identification ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Development of multiplex cross displacement amplification combined with lateral flow biosensor assay for detection of virulentFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of alternative isothermal amplification assays including multiple cross displacement amplification (MCDA) may address speed and portability limitations of real-time PCR (rt-PCR) methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We developed a novel SARS-CoV-2 MCDA assay and compared its speed and sensitivity to loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and rt-PCR. Two MCDA assays targeting SARS-CoV-2 N gene and ORF1ab were designed. The fastest time to detection and sensitivity of MCDA was compared to LAMP and rt-PCR using DNA standards and transcribed RNA. For the N gene, MCDA was faster than LAMP and rt-PCR by 10 and 20 min, respectively with fastest time to detection at 5.2 min. rt-PCR had the highest sensitivity with the limit of detection at 10 copies/µl compared with MCDA (100 copies/µl) and LAMP (500 copies/µl). For ORF1ab, MCDA and LAMP had similar speed with fastest time to detection at 9.7 and 8.4 min, respectively. LAMP was more sensitive for ORF1ab detection with 50 copies/µl compared to MCDA (500 copies/µl). In conclusion, different nucleic acid amplification methods provide different advantages. MCDA is the fastest nucleic acid amplification method for SARS-CoV-2 while rt-PCR is the most sensitive. These advantages should be considered when determining the most suitable nucleic acid amplification methods for different applications.
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.