ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2021
Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is influenced by the type of transport medium: Implications for diagnosis and monitoring.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is influenced by the type of transport medium: Implications for diagnosis and monitoring.International journal of clinical practice · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is unclear if the use of a molecular transport medium (MTM) containing guanidine isothiocyanate (GITC) would be advantageous over the CDC recommended, commonly used viral transport medium (VTM). We retested 70 SARS-CoV2 cases by RT-PCR in varying stages of follow-up using MTM and VTM in parallel and found discrepant results of RNase P, E and N genes. Majority (81%) patients tested positive with MTM as compared with VTM (27.1%). Even patients who were sampled 3 weeks after diagnosis demonstrated a significant discrepancy in the positivity rates between MTM vs VTM raising concerns about the clinical utility of VTM.
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.