ArticleGenes2021
Evaluation of RT-qPCR and Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Argentina.
Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Quantitative mRNA expression measurement at home.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- The quality of commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests in Ecuador: lessons from COVID-19 pandemic for advancing social equity through microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Improvements to the Rapid Detection of the Marine Pathogenic Bacterium,Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of Reverse Transcriptase Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) as a Simple and Rapid Diagnostic Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Abbott ID NOW SARS-CoV-2 rapid test for the triage of acute medical admissions.The Journal of hospital infection · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection kits used in Argentina. Nine real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and three reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assays were evaluated using the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended test as reference method. A secondary standard calibrated for the E, N and RdRp genes against the Pan American Health Organization-World Health Organization-International Standard was used to calculate the limit of detection (LoD). A panel of artificial clinical samples, 32 positive and 30 negative for SARS-CoV-2, were analyzed to estimate the kappa concordance (κ) and the diagnostic performance. Differences among the LoD values for the target genes amplified by each kit were >1 log copies/reaction. The κ for the RT-qPCR kits was greater than 0.9, whereas that for the RT-LAMP assays ranged from 0.75 to 0.93. The clinical performance of RT-qPCR kits showed 100% specificity and high sensitivity, although with variations according to the gene analyzed. The E and N genes provided greater clinical sensitivity, whereas the RdRp gene increased the clinical specificity. The RT-LAMP assays revealed a variable diagnostic performance. The information provided can be useful to choose the most appropriate diagnostic test and may contribute to the establishment of a consensus in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in Argentina and the region.
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.