ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021
Comparison Between a Standard and SalivaDirect RNA Extraction Protocol for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Using Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Clinical Samples.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Silica-coated magnetic particles for efficient RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Heliyon · 2024Article
- SalivaDirect: an alternative to a conventional RNA extraction protocol for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical setting.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Scalable solutions for global health: the SalivaDirect model.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.The Japanese dental science review · 2023Review
- Antigen concentration, viral load, and test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in multiple specimen types.PloS one · 2023Article
- Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review.Access microbiology · 2022Review
- Multiplex Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Viruses.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- An innovative approach for the non-invasive surveillance of communities and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 via solid waste analysis.The Science of the total environment · 2021Article
- Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.HRB open research · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a certified laboratory of Tamaulipas, Mexico has processed over 100,000 samples of COVID-19 suspected patients, working a minimum of 100 tests daily. Thus, it would be beneficial for such certified laboratories nationwide to reduce the time and cost involved in performing the diagnosis of COVID-19, from sample collection, transportation to local lab, processing of samples, and data acquisition. Here, 30 nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples from the same COVID-19 individuals were assessed by a standard nucleic acid extraction protocol, including protein lysis with proteinase K followed by binding to column, washing, and elution, and by the SalivaDirect protocol based on protein lysis, skipping the other steps to reduce processing time and costs. The genomic RNA was amplified using a SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR kit. A variation (
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.