ArticleJournal of infection and public health2021
Development and validation of an in-house, low-cost SARS-CoV-2 detection assay.
Article in Journal of infection and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A one-step low-cost molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 detection suitable for community testing using minimally processed saliva.Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- SARS-CoV-2 spike gene Sanger sequencing methodology to identify variants of concern.BioTechniques · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Validation of a novel molecular assay to the diagnostic of COVID-19 based on real time PCR with high resolution melting.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne major challenge for detecting the virus that causes COVID-19 is commercial SARS-CoV-2 testing kit or reagent availability. To allow every laboratory or hospital access to an in-house assay, we developed a low-cost SARS-CoV-2 detection assay protocol using in-house primers and reagents/equipment on hand in most biology or diagnostic laboratories: a SYBR Green-based RT-PCR. RNA extraction has also become a major bottleneck due to limited supplies and the required labor. Thus, we validated an alternative RNA extraction protocol.
methodsWe designed and synthesized in-house primers according to SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences retrieved from GISAID database. One hundred and ninety patient samples were collected by nasopharyngeal swab, coded, and used to develop and validate the assay protocol. RNA extraction was performed using TRI reagent-based RNA protocol to inactivate the virus; thus, testing was conducted in a conventional biosafety level 2 laboratory.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the primers were evaluated using 190 patient samples previously tested for SARS-CoV-2. The positive amplicons were sequenced to confirm the results. The assay protocol was developed, and the specificity of each RT-PCR product was confirmed using melting curve analyses. Of 190 samples, the SYBR Green-based RT-PCR assay detected SARS-CoV-2 target genes in 88 samples, with no false-positive results. These findings indicate that the sensitivity of our assay was 97.7% and specificity of 100% with those of the diagnostic laboratory that tested the same samples using a Rotor-Gene PCR cycler with an Altona Diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 kit (R
conclusionsThese approaches are reliable, repeatable, specific, sensitive, simple, and low-cost tools for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a conventional biosafety level 2 laboratory, offering alternative approaches when commercial kits are unavailable or not affordable.
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.