ReviewIrish journal of medical science2022
Research progress in laboratory detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Thermal Cycler Based on Magnetic Induction Heating and Anti-Freezing Water Cooling for Rapid PCR.Micromachines · 2024Article
- [Clinical features of 23 neonates infected with Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2023Article
- Novel receptor, mutation, vaccine, and establishment of coping mode for SARS-CoV-2: current status and future.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Laboratory detection of SARS-CoV-2: A review of the current literature and future perspectives.Heliyon · 2022Review
- Application of Baculovirus Expression Vector system (BEV) for COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics: a review.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2022Review
- Recent advances in PCR-free nucleic acid detection for SARS-COV-2.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNucleic acid testing is a reliable method for diagnosing viral infection in clinical samples. However, when the number of cases is huge and there are individual differences in the virus itself, the probability of false-negative results increases. With the advancement in research on the new coronavirus, new detection technologies that use serum-specific antibodies as detection targets have been developed. These detection technologies have high efficiency and shorter turnaround time, which ultimately shortens the time required for diagnosis. This article summarizes the methods that have been reported to date for the detection of the new coronavirus and discusses their principles and technical characteristics.
aimsCompare the advantages and disadvantages of various SARS-CoV-2 detection methods and analyze their principles.
methodsSearched reports on SARS-CoV-2 detection methods published so far, extracted the data and analyzed them. Use the primer blast function of NCBI to analyze the primers used in qRT-PCR detection.
resultsThe detection sensitivity was the highest when nucleocapsid protein gene was used as the target, reaching 96.6%. The detection efficiency of the remaining targets ranged from 66.7% to 96.0%. Various new detection methods, like Serum specific antibody detection, can speed up the test time. However, due to the complexity of the method and higher testing requirements, it seems that it cannot be used as a complete replacement for qRT-PRC testing.
conclusionsWith the advancement of technology and the improvement of methods, the detection methods of SARSCoV-2 have become more mature. These advances provided great help to the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
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.