ArticlePloS one2021
Rapid processing of SARS-CoV-2 containing specimens for direct RT-PCR.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- How to better select SARS-CoV-2 preservation solution of virus nucleic acid testing.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- A paper-based colorimetric molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Biosensors & bioelectronics: X · 2021Article
- Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Widespread diagnostic testing is needed to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and manage the pandemic. Effective mass screening requires robust and sensitive tests that reliably detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections with a low viral count. Currently, the most accurate tests are based on detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR. We developed a method to process COVID-19 specimens that simplifies and increases the sensitivity of viral RNA detection by direct RT-qPCR, performed without RNA purification. In the method, termed Alkaline-Glycol Processing (AG Processing), a SARS-CoV-2-containing biological specimen, such as saliva or a swab-collected suspension, is processed at pH 12.2 to 12.8 for 5 min at room temperature. An aliquot of the AG-processed specimen is used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by direct RT-qPCR. AG processing effectively lyses viruses and reduces the effect of inhibitors of RT-PCR that are present in biological specimens. The sensitivity of detecting viral RNA using AG processing is on par with methods that include a viral RNA purification step. One copy of SARS-CoV-2 virus per reaction, equivalent to 300 copies per ml of saliva, is detectable in the AG-processed saliva. The LOD is 300 viral copies per ml of initial saliva specimen. AG processing works with saliva specimens or swab specimens collected into Universal Transport Medium, is compatible with heat treatment of saliva, and was confirmed to work with a range of CDC-approved RT-qPCR products and kits. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using AG processing with direct RT-qPCR provides a reliable and scalable diagnostic test for COVID-19 that can be integrated into a range of workflows, including automated settings.
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.