ArticleJournal of virological methods2021
Comparative study of different SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic techniques.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a rapid five-minute nucleic acid extraction method for respiratory viruses.Virology journal · 2024Article
- Role of Hologic® Panther AptimaTM SARS-CoV-2 assay in the detection of SARS-CoV-2: screening or diagnostic technique?Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 led to the necessity of developing diagnostic tests for rapid virus detection. Many commercial platforms have appeared and have been approved for this purpose. In this study, 95 positive and 5 negative retrospective samples were analyzed by 4 different commercial RT-qPCR kits (TaqMan 2019nCoV Assay, Allplex™SARS-COV-2 Assay, FTD SARS-COV-2 Assay and qCOVID-19). The Hologic Aptima SARS-COV-2 and the Clart-COVID-19 system were also tested. serial dilutions of SARS-COV-2 standard control were included for sensitivity analysis. Among the qPCR tested qCOVID19 and Allplex™SARS-COV-2 Assay were both able to detect all the clinical samples included in the study. All four qPCR evaluated showed high sensitivity for samples with Ct<33. Clart-COVID-19 microarrays detected all samples and controls used in this study whereas Hologic Aptima Panther failed with one of the clinical samples. However, the main problem with this system was the number of invalidated samples despite avoiding the use of medium with guanidine isothiocyanate as recommended by the manufacturer. All the techniques tested were of value for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
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.