Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34648741›Full record

ArticleThe Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases

Performance of an alternative RT-PCR procedure using residual sample from the Panbio™ Ag COVID-19 test.

Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto Castineiras, Érica Ramos Dos Santos Nascimento, Débora Souza Faffe, Rafael Mello Galliez, Diana Mariani, Isabela de Carvalho Leitão, Mayla Gabryele Miranda de Melo, Orlando Costa Ferreira, Amilcar Tanuri, UFRJ COVID-19 Working group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. LongitudinalViruses · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto CastineirasDepartment of Infectious Disease, Scholl of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Érica Ramos Dos Santos NascimentoDepartment of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Débora Souza FaffeBiophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rafael Mello GalliezDepartment of Infectious Disease, Scholl of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Diana MarianiDepartment of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Isabela de Carvalho LeitãoBiophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mayla Gabryele Miranda de MeloSchool of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Orlando Costa FerreiraDepartment of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Amilcar TanuriDepartment of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: Atanuri1@gmail.com.
UFRJ COVID-19 Working group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the current standard of care (SoC) RT-PCR method for COVID-19, the patient's swab was extracted in viral transport media (VTM). For the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the patient swab is flushed out in extraction buffer, of which a small fraction is used for testing, leaving more than half the sample unused. This study was designed to show that RT-PCR results from the residual sample of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (called Novel RT-PCR) are not worse than the SoC RT-PCR result.

methodsThe study was performed using (1) dilution series of five patient samples, and (2) 413 patient samples comparing SOC versus Novel RT-PCR results.

resultsFor the dilution series samples, all tested positive by both methods. The bias between Ct values of Novel RT-PCR and SoC RT-PCR did not exceed 3.00 Ct using primers N1 and N2. A total of 413 COVID symptomatic patients seeking COVID testing were tested, of which 89 patients tested positive and 324 tested negative with SoC RT-PCR. In 324 patients who tested negative with SoC RT-PCR, 323 tested negative with Novel RT-PCR, and one (1) tested positive. Out of 89 who tested positive with SoC RT-PCR, 80 tested positive with the Novel RT-PCR, and nine patients showed a negative test result. The Overall Percent Agreement for the 413 valid patient sample pairs was 97.5 [95% CI 97 to 98].

conclusionThe study demonstrated that the performance of the Novel RT-PCR method is acceptable compared to the SoC RT-PCR method and can be a useful tool to perform RT-PCR without the need for new swab collections.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antigens, ViralCOVID-19 TestingHumansReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, ViralAntigen rapid testCOVID-19RT-PCR

Identifiers

PMID34648741
PMCPMC8506141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.