ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2022
Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Reverse transcription loop‑mediated isothermal amplification has a high performance in the detection of SARS‑CoV‑2 in saliva samples and nasal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Using Real-Time PCR Fluorescence Reaction Values to Improve SARS-CoV-2 Virus Detection and Benefit Clinical Decision-Making.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- How Significant Are Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test Findings When Only an N2 Gene Is Detected?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRapid and accurate detection of COVID-19 is crucial for mitigation of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of six molecular kits and the effect of several factors on the performance of the kits. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred and four nasopharyngeal samples were collected from participants aged ≥18 years at the Baruch Padeh Medical Center Poriya, Israel, between June and August 2020. Samples were tested by: Allplex 2019-nCOV Assay (Seegene), Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kit for Detecting SARS-2019-nCoV (BGI Genomics), Xpert
resultsXpert
conclusionsTaken together, most assays had overall good performance. Since several factors affect the performance of kits, each laboratory must be familiar with its kit's limitations in order to produce the most reliable results.
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.