ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2021
Implementation of an Extraction-Free COVID Real-Time PCR Workflow in a Pediatric Hospital Setting.
Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating extraction-free PCR for rapid detection of beta-lactam antibiotic resistance in urinary tract infection.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Novel Assays for Molecular Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study outlines the development, implementation, and impact of a laboratory-developed, extraction-free real-time PCR assay as the primary diagnostic test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a pediatric hospital.
methodsClinical specimens from both upper and lower respiratory tract sources were validated, including nasopharyngeal aspirates, nasopharyngeal swabs, anterior nares swabs, and tracheal aspirates (n = 333 clinical samples). Testing volumes and laboratory turnaround times were then compared before and after implementation to investigate effects of the workflow changes.
resultsCompared to magnetic-bead extraction platforms, extraction-free real-time PCR demonstrated ≥95% positive agreement and ≥97% negative agreement across all tested sources. Implementation of this workflow reduced laboratory turnaround time from an average of 8.8 (+/-5.5) h to 3.6 (+/-1.3) h despite increasing testing volumes (from 1515 to 4884 tests per week over the reported period of testing).
conclusionsThe extraction-free workflow reduced extraction reagent cost for SARS-CoV-2 testing by 97%, shortened sample handling time, and significantly alleviated supply chain scarcities due to the elimination of specialized extraction reagents for routine testing. Overall, this assay is a viable option for laboratories to increase efficiency and navigate reagent shortages for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing.
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.