ArticleForensic science international2021
Forensic evaluation of two nucleic acid extraction systems and validation of a RT-qPCR protocol for identification of SARS-CoV-2 in post-mortem nasopharyngeal swabs.
Article in Forensic science international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparability of CMV DNA Extraction Methods and Validation of Viral Load.Methods and protocols · 2022Article
- Identification of SARS-CoV-2 in post-mortem nasopharyngeal swabs.Forensic science international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 outbreak has represented a challenge for the international scientific community and particularly for forensic sciences. The lack of Coronavirus post-mortem testing led the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences (INTCF) from Spain to verify the performance and utility of a quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) clinical diagnosis protocol for SARS-CoV-2 detection (TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit), to shed light on the cause of death (COD) in potentially COVID-19 cases in judicial autopsies. Two different RNA extraction methods were also tested (EZ1® DSP Virus Kit on the EZ1® Advanced XL robot versus MagMAX™ Viral/Pathogen Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit) regarding extraction efficiency, precision and contamination. RT-qPCR was evaluated for precision, specificity, limit of detection and concordance. Both the automated and the manual RNA extraction procedures showed good efficiency, but the automated virus extraction by bio-robot produced more reproducible results than the manual extraction. The SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay showed high sensitivity with a detection limit up to 10 copies/reaction and high specificity, as no cross-reactivity was detected between any of the 12 different RNA viruses tested, including three types of coronaviruses (SARS-CoV, NL63 and 229E). Reproducibility and repeatability of the studied method as well as concordance with other SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection protocols were also demonstrated.
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.