Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34190954›Full record

ArticleRevista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo2021

COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols.

Karoline Rodrigues Campos, Cláudio Tavares Sacchi, Cláudia Regina Gonçalves, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes Pagnoca, Alana Dos Santos Dias, Lucila Okuyama Fukasawa, Adele Caterino-de-Araujo

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. One-Step RT-qPCR for Viral RNA Detection Using Digital Analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karoline Rodrigues CamposInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Respostas Rápidas, Laboratório Estratégico, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-1937
Cláudio Tavares SacchiInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Respostas Rápidas, Laboratório Estratégico, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5686-7979
Cláudia Regina GonçalvesInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Respostas Rápidas, Laboratório Estratégico, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4287-0560
Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes PagnocaInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Respostas Rápidas, Laboratório Estratégico, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-4642
Alana Dos Santos DiasInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Respostas Rápidas, Laboratório Estratégico, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7926-5658
Lucila Okuyama FukasawaInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Imunologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6688-0528
Adele Caterino-de-AraujoInstituto Adolfo Lutz, Centro de Imunologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0155-6580
Instituto Adolfo Lutz · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925).

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2BrazilClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansLaboratoriesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID34190954
PMCPMC8231976
OpenAlexW3174712008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.