ArticleScientific reports2021
Evaluation of mobile real-time polymerase chain reaction tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Portable Diagnostic Assay, Genetic Diversity, and Isolation of Seoul Virus fromPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An 8-gene machine learning model improves clinical prediction of severe dengue progression.Genome medicine · 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
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), calls for prompt and accurate diagnosis and rapid turnaround time for test results to limit transmission. Here, we evaluated two independent molecular assays, the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 test, and the Precision Biomonitoring TripleLock SARS-CoV-2 test on a field-deployable point-of-care real-time PCR instrument, Franklin three9, in combination with Biomeme M1 Sample Prep Cartridge Kit for RNA 2.0 (M1) manual extraction system for rapid, specific, and sensitive detection of SARS-COV-2 in cell culture, human, and animal clinical samples. The Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 assay, which simultaneously detects two viral targets, the orf1ab and S genes, and the Precision Biomonitoring TripleLock SARS-CoV-2 assay that targets the 5' untranslated region (5' UTR) and the envelope (E) gene of SARS-CoV-2 were highly sensitive and detected as low as 15 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per reaction. In addition, the two assays were specific and showed no cross-reactivity with Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), transmissible gastroenteritis (TGE) virus, and other common human respiratory viruses and bacterial pathogens. Also, both assays were highly reproducible across different operators and instruments. When used to test animal samples, both assays equally detected SARS-CoV-2 genetic materials in the swabs from SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters. The M1 lysis buffer completely inactivated SARS-CoV-2 within 10 min at room temperature enabling safe handling of clinical samples. Collectively, these results show that the Biomeme and Precision Biomonitoring TripleLock SARS-CoV-2 mobile testing platforms could reliably and promptly detect SARS-CoV-2 in both human and animal clinical samples in approximately an hour and can be used in remote areas or health care settings not traditionally serviced by a microbiology laboratory.
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.