ArticlePloS one2021
Validation of conventional PCR-like alternative to SARS-CoV-2 detection with target nucleocapsid protein gene in naso-oropharyngeal samples.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- Development and validation of cost-effective one-step multiplex RT-PCR assay for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 infection using SYBR Green melting curve analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A loop-mediated isothermal amplification-enabled analytical assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 has spread worldwide and has become a global health problem. As a result, the demand for inputs for diagnostic tests rose dramatically, as did the cost. Countries with inadequate infrastructure experience difficulties in expanding their qPCR testing capacity. Therefore, the development of sensitive and specific alternative methods is essential. This study aimed to develop, standardize, optimize, and validate conventional RT-PCR targeting the N gene of SARS-CoV-2 in naso-oropharyngeal swab samples compared to qPCR. Using bioinformatics tools, specific primers were determined, with a product expected to be 519 bp. The reaction conditions were optimized using a commercial positive control, and the detection limit was determined to be 100 fragments. To validate conventional RT-PCR, we determined a representative sampling of 346 samples from patients with suspected infection whose diagnosis was made in parallel with qPCR. A sensitivity of 92.1% and specificity of 100% were verified, with an accuracy of 95.66% and correlation coefficient of 0.913. Under current Brazilian conditions, this method generates approximately 60% savings compared to qPCR costs. Conventional RT-PCR, validated herein, showed sufficient results for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and can be used as an alternative for epidemiological studies and interspecies correlations.
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.