ArticleJournal of virological methods2022
A fast and cheap in-house magnetic bead RNA extraction method for COVID-19 diagnosis.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood-feeding Patterns of Amazonian Forest Edge Mosquitoes.Research square · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Review on Viral RNA Extraction Strategies for Enhanced Molecular Diagnostics.Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Silica-coated magnetic particles for efficient RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Salmonella detection with LAMP and qPCR and identification of serovars of interest by multiplex qPCR in poultry carcasses.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- Developing novel liquid biopsy by selective capture of viral RNA on magnetic beads to detect COVID-19.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 has posed a worldwide public health challenge affecting millions of people in different countries. Rapid and efficient detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for pandemic control. Reverse Transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swabs is the gold standard method for the virus detection, but the high demand for tests has substantially increased the costs and reduced the availability of reagents, including genetic material purification kits. Thus, the present study aimed to compare two bead-based RNA extraction methods (an in-house and a commercial kit) from nasopharyngeal swabs and RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. Twenty-five positive and five negative nasopharyngeal swab samples were subjected to extraction of nucleic acids using both methods in an automated platform. Both protocols revealed a high correlation between Cycle Quantifications (Cqs) (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001). In addition, the in-house kit was 89.5 % cheaper when compared to the mean cost of commercial RNA extraction kits. The results show that the in-house protocol is an affordable and reliable option for RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs.
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.