ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2021
COVID-19 and Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR-Facts and Fallacies.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities and Challenges in Gas Sensor Technologies for Accurate Detection of COVID-19.Biosensors · 2025Review
- RT-qPCR Testing and Performance Metrics in the COVID-19 Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Reducing Bias and Quantifying Uncertainty in Fluorescence Produced by PCR.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2023Article
- Development of a Single-Chain Variable Fragment of CR3022 for a Plasmonic-Based Biosensor Targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Recent review of COVID-19 management: diagnosis, treatment and vaccination.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2022Review
- The Future of Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid Amplification Diagnostics after COVID-19: Time to Walk the Walk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Digital PCR can augment the interpretation of RT-qPCR Cq values for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2022Article
- Assessment of COVID-19 Molecular Testing Capacity in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study at the Country Level.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- SARS-CoV-2 in Egypt: epidemiology, clinical characterization and bioinformatics analysis.Heliyon · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Variability in RT-qPCR assay parameters indicates unreliable SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification for wastewater surveillance.Water research · 2021Review
- Evaluation of aPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- RT-qPCR Diagnostics: The "Drosten" SARS-CoV-2 Assay Paradigm.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Sample Adequacy Control (SAC) Lowers False Negatives and Increases the Quality of Screening: Introduction of "Non-Competitive" SAC for qPCR Assays.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although molecular testing, and RT-qPCR in particular, has been an indispensable component in the scientific armoury targeting SARS-CoV-2, there are numerous falsehoods, misconceptions, assumptions and exaggerated expectations with regards to capability, performance and usefulness of the technology. It is essential that the true strengths and limitations, although publicised for at least twenty years, are restated in the context of the current COVID-19 epidemic. The main objective of this commentary is to address and help stop the unfounded and debilitating speculation surrounding its use.
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.