Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34755352›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical virology2022

Analysis by real-time PCR of five transport and conservation mediums of nasopharyngeal swab samples to COVID-19 diagnosis in Santiago of Chile.

Carlos Barrera-Avalos, Roberto Luraschi, Eva Vallejos-Vidal, Maximiliano Figueroa, Esteban Arenillas, Daniela Barría, Felipe Hernández, Carlos Mateluna, Javier Mena, Claudia Rioseco and 19 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

29 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Carlos Barrera-AvalosCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Roberto LuraschiCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Eva Vallejos-VidalCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Maximiliano FigueroaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Esteban ArenillasCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Daniela BarríaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Felipe HernándezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Carlos MatelunaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javier MenaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Claudia RiosecoCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Claudia TorrentCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Claudio VergaraCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Gaby GutiérrezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javiera QuirozCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javiera AlarcónCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Julio CartagenaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javiera CayunaoCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Andrea Mella-TorresCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Álvaro SantibañezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Sebastián TapiaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Alejandro UndurragaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Deborah VargasCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Valentina WongCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ailen Inostroza-MolinaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Daniel ValdésCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Mónica ImaraiCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Claudio Acuña-CastilloCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Felipe E Reyes-LópezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ana M SandinoCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Universidad de Santiago de Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many transport kits have been manufactured to preserve and transport nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs) from patients. However, there is no information on the performance of the different virus transport media (VTM) used in COVID-19 diagnosis in the population of Santiago de Chile. We compared the RT-qPCR amplification profile of five different viral transport kit mediums, including DNA/RNA Shield™, NAT, VTM-N, Ezmedlab™, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), for NPSs from Central Metropolitan Health Service, Santiago, Chile. The DNA/RNA Shield™ medium showed a better performance in terms of Cq and RFU values for the internal reference RNase P and viral ORF1ab probes. By contrast, the PBS transport medium registered higher Cq values for the viral and reference gene, compared to the other VTM. DNA/RNA Shield™ shows higher relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and lower Cq values for the reference gene. Collectively, our results suggest that the PBS medium could compromise the sample diagnosis because of its lower RT-qPCR performance. The NAT, Ezmedlab and VTM-N, and DNA/RNA Shield™ media show acceptable RT-qPCR parameters and, consequently, seem suitable for use in COVID-19 diagnosis.

Indexed as

COVID-19ChileCOVID-19 TestingCulture MediaHumansNasopharynxPandemicsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNARNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingCulture MediaRNARNA, Viralfalse negative diagnosticnasopharyngeal sample transport kitsRNA subunit of ribonuclease P (RNase P) amplificationSARS-CoV-2 diagnosticsSARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab genevirus transport medium

Identifiers

PMID34755352
PMCPMC8662110
OpenAlexW3211976434

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.