ArticleScientific reports2021
Overcoming limitations in the availability of swabs systems used for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory diagnostics.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of Extraction-Free SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-qPCR for COVID-19 Testing in a Resource-Limited Setting.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 3D printed fluidic swab for COVID-19 testing with improved diagnostic yield and user comfort.Nano convergence · 2023Article
- Single-Center Experience in Detecting Influenza Virus, RSV and SARS-CoV-2 at the Emergency Department.Viruses · 2023Article
- Diagnostic assay and technology advancement for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections causing the COVID-19 pandemic.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
- Article
- Evaluation and Clinical Validation of Guanidine-Based Inactivation Transport Medium for Preservation of SARS-CoV-2.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Determining SARS-CoV-2 non-infectivity state-A brief overview.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Optimization and Standardization of Human Saliva Collection for MALDI-TOF MS.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- COVID-19 andMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a review of molecular diagnostic tools including sample collection and commercial response with associated advantages and limitations.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Review
- Characteristics of chest high resolution computed tomography images of COVID-19: A retrospective study of 46 patients.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory specimens by RT-PCR. The pandemic spread of the disease caused an imbalance between demand and supply of materials and reagents needed for diagnostic purposes including swab sets. In a comparative effectiveness study, we conducted serial follow-up swabs in hospitalized laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. We assessed the diagnostic performance of an in-house system developed according to recommendations by the US CDC. In a total of 96 serial swabs, we found significant differences in the accuracy of the different swab systems to generate a positive result in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ranging from around 50 to 80%. Of note, an in-house swab system was superior to most commercially available sets as reflected by significantly lower Ct values of viral genes. Thus, a simple combination of broadly available materials may enable diagnostic laboratories to bypass global limitations in the supply of swab sets.
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.