Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33582488›Full record

Trial reportEBioMedicine2021

Simpler and faster Covid-19 testing: Strategies to streamline SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays.

Nuttada Panpradist, Qin Wang, Parker S Ruth, Jack H Kotnik, Amy K Oreskovic, Abraham Miller, Samuel W A Stewart, Justin Vrana, Peter D Han, Ingrid A Beck and 3 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in EBioMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Passively sensing SARS-CoV-2 RNA in public transit buses.The Science of the total environment · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Rapid Near Point-of-Care Assay forAIDS research and human retroviruses · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nuttada PanpradistDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Global Health of Women, Adolescents, and Children (Global WACh), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Qin WangDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Parker S RuthDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Jack H KotnikDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Amy K OreskovicDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Abraham MillerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Samuel W A StewartDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Center for Global Infectious Disease Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.
Justin VranaDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Peter D HanDepartment of Genome Sciences, Seattle, WA, United States; Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
Ingrid A BeckCenter for Global Infectious Disease Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.
Lea M StaritaDepartment of Genome Sciences, Seattle, WA, United States; Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
Lisa M FrenkelCenter for Global Infectious Disease Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States; Departments of Global Health, Medicine, Paediatrics, and Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: lfrenkel@uw.edu.
Barry R LutzDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: blutz@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USBrotman Baty Institute · USCenter for Infectious Disease Research · USInfectious Disease Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of SARS-CoV-2 infections is important for treatment, isolation of infected and exposed individuals, and contact tracing. RT-qPCR is the "gold-standard" method to sensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but most laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays involve complex steps. Here, we aimed to simplify RT-qPCR assays by streamlining reaction setup, eliminating RNA extraction, and proposing reduced-cost detection workflows that avoid the need for expensive qPCR instruments.

methodA low-cost RT-PCR based "kit" was developed for faster turnaround than the CDC developed protocol. We demonstrated three detection workflows: two that can be deployed in laboratories conducting assays of variable complexity, and one that could be simple enough for point-of-care. Analytical sensitivity was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 RNA spiked in simulated nasal matrix. Clinical performance was evaluated using contrived human nasal matrix (n = 41) and clinical nasal specimens collected from individuals with respiratory symptoms (n = 110). FINDING: The analytical sensitivity of the lyophilised RT-PCR was 10 copies/reaction using purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 20 copies/reaction when using direct lysate in simulated nasal matrix. Evaluation of assay performance on contrived human matrix showed 96.7-100% specificity and 100% sensitivity at ≥20 RNA copies. A head-to-head comparison with the standard CDC protocol on clinical specimens showed 83.8-94.6% sensitivity and 96.8-100% specificity. We found 3.6% indeterminate samples (undetected human control), lower than 8.1% with the standard protocol.

interpretationThis preliminary work should support laboratories or commercial entities to develop and expand access to Covid-19 testing. Software guidance development for this assay is ongoing to enable implementation in other settings. FUND: USA NIH R01AI140845 and Seattle Children's Research Institute.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionHumansRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityRNA, ViralFast Covid-19 testingLow-cost Covid-19 testingPoint-of-care

Identifiers

PMID33582488
PMCPMC7878117
OpenAlexW3130693765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.