Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34520809›Full record

ArticleJournal of virological methods2021

Validation of the analytical performance of nine commercial RT-qPCR kits for SARS-CoV-2 detection using certified reference material.

Di Wang, Zhidong Wang, Ying Gao, Xiao Wu, Lianhua Dong, Xinhua Dai, Yunhua Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. RT-qPCR Testing and Performance Metrics in the COVID-19 Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Detection and quantification ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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.

Di WangCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Zhidong WangCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Ying GaoCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Xiao WuCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Lianhua DongCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Xinhua DaiCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China.
Yunhua GaoCenter for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing, China. Electronic address: gaoyh@nim.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency. Although many reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays have been developed, their performance, especially sensitivity assessment, has been insufficiently tested. In this study, a preliminary comparison of the analytical sensitivity of nine RT-qPCR kits from different manufacturers was first conducted using a certified reference material derived from the genomic RNA of SARS-CoV-2 as the template. Subsequently, three of the nine kits, comprising two highly sensitive kits (DAAN, Huirui) and one less sensitive kit (Geneodx), were selected for further sensitivity and specificity validation. The results revealed variations in the performance between kits of the two groups. For the two highly sensitive kits, the limits of detection at 95 % probability (LOD95%) were 5.6 copies of the N gene and 3.5 copies of the ORF 1ab per reaction (DAAN), and 6.4 (N) and 4.6 (ORF 1ab) copies per reaction (Huirui). These LOD95% values were approximately 3 to 4-fold better than those of the Geneodx Kit. However, none of these three Kits showed cross-reactivity against 6 other types of human coronaviruses or respiratory viruses. Because most of these commercial kits are approved as in vitro diagnostics (testing specimens without direct human contact), it would be beneficial for their manufacturers to improve the diagnostic capability of these kits and thus reduce the clinical risks associated with false-negative results.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityRNA, ViralCertified reference materialLimit of detectionRT-qPCRSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID34520809
PMCPMC8434693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.