ArticleExpert review of molecular diagnostics2021
Comparative evaluation of a dual-target real-time RT-PCR assay for COVID-19 diagnosis and assessment of performance in pooled saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples.
Article in Expert review of molecular diagnostics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized Diagnostic Assays for Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Virus.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Performance evaluation of Biofire Film Array Respiratory Panel 2.1 for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a pediatric hospital setting.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel COVID-19 nsp8 One-Tube RT-LAMP-CRISPR Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- An improvement of current hypercube pooling PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The best pooling strategy to reduce polymerase chain reaction tests during the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic at low prevalence.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSensitive molecular diagnostic assays are essential for COVID-19 diagnosis. We evaluated the Hecin Scientific SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test kit, a dual-target real-time RT-PCR assay targeting the SARS-CoV-2 N and ORF1ab genes.
methodsThe Hecin test kit's diagnostic performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA was compared to the LightMix Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene kit (TIB Molbiol) and an in-house single-tube nested real-time RT-PCR using 296 clinical specimens, 11 proficiency testing samples, and 30 low-positive deep throat saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples pooled into negative samples in ratios of 1:5, 1:10, and 1:30.
resultsThe limit-of-detection of the Hecin test kit was around 500 dC/mL for the N and ORF1ab targets. Sensitivity and specificity of the Hecin test kit were 98.1% (95% CI: 93.4-99.8%) and 100% (98.1-100%), respectively, when measured against the reference method. The Hecin test kit showed fair sensitivity (80%) in low-positive NPS samples pooled in ratios of 1:5 and 1:10. Its performance in pooled samples could be dramatically improved by adjusting the assay Ct cutoff.
conclusionThe Hecin test kit enables sensitive and specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples and pooled samples.
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.