ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Evaluation of a new point-of-care quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain test for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinical evaluation of a novel molecular diagnosis kit for detecting Helicobacter pylori and clarithromycin-resistant using intragastric fluid.Helicobacter · 2022Article
- Performance comparison of two nucleic acid amplification systems for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A multi-center study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a new point-of-care quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain test for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is rapidly spreading worldwide, and the resultant disease, coronavirus disease (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic. Although there are multiple methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2, there are some issues with such tests, including long processing time, expense, low sensitivity, complexity, risk of contamination, and user friendly. This study evaluated the reproducibility and usability of a new point-of-care test (POCT) using real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
methodsSamples from 96 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed using the real-time qRT-PCR-based POCT and the conventional real-time qRT-PCR method based on the Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases guidelines (registration number: jRCT1032200025).
resultsThe real-time qRT-PCR-based POCT had a positive agreement rate of 90.0% (18/20), a negative agreement rate of 100% (76/76), and a total agreement rate of 97.9% (94/96), and the significantly high score of questionnaire survey (total score p < 0.0001). In the two cases in which real-time qRT-PCR-based POCT results did not match conventional real-time qRT-PCR test results, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers were 8.0 copies per test in one case and below the detection limit in the other case when quantified using conventional real-time qRT-PCR. All patients could be triaged within 1 day using the real-time qRT-PCR-based POCT without invalid reports.
conclusionsThe real-time qRT-PCR-based POCT not only had high reproducibility and useability but also allowed rapid patient triage. Therefore, it may be helpful in clinical settings.
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.