ArticleMethodsX2021
A novel approach to minimize the false negative COVID-19 diagnosis by inclusion of specific cell markers and multiple sample collection.
Article in MethodsX, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: Implications for late-stage diagnosis and infectious duration.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Improved DNA extraction on bamboo paper and cotton is tightly correlated with their crystallinity and hygroscopicity.PloS one · 2022Article
- Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused unpredictable mortality and economic losses globally. With no approved drug for the treatment, the accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 becomes essential. RNA based test takes several hours and require extensive human intervention for RNA extraction and RT-PCR, but it is preferred over the antibody-based detection as the latter does not detect the early stage infections. The RT-PCR being a gold standard of COVID-19 diagnosis offers highly standardized detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA, still vulnerable for false-negative diagnosis due to absence of infected cells in the sample or inaccurate RNA extraction. Hence there is a need to develop alternative protocols and methods for the accurate COVID-19 diagnosis. Here we propose two additional steps in RT-PCR based COVID-19 diagnosis to minimize false-negative detection. The first step involves collection of four samples from an individual. Each sample should be collected from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal regions on day 01, mixed together followed by RNA extraction and then repeating the same exercise on day 03. The RNA extracted on day 01 and day 03 must be pooled together to be used in the RT-PCR. Second, we propose the inclusion of the control marker genes specific to nasal goblet cell, type-II pneumocyte and absorptive enterocytes to ensure the specificity of the RNA source. Overall, these additional steps in the proposed method would increase the chances of SARS-CoV-2 detection in the infected population and would limit the false-negative diagnosis of COVID-19 and hence the spread of this disease.•RT-PCR based COVID-19 diagnosis is vulnerable to the false-negative results due to inaccurate sample isolation or RNA extraction.•RNA pool of multiple samples from an individual improves the chances of detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.•Inclusion of specific marker genes would ensure the right RNA source from the desired cell.
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.