Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218945›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2022

A Comparison of Seegene Technologies Novaplex SARS-CoV-2 Variants I, II, and IV Assays with Spike Gene Sequencing for Detection of Known Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants.

Marisa C Nielsen, Rafael R G Machado, Brooke M Mitchell, Allan J McConnell, Nehad I Saada, Scott C Weaver, Ping Ren

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marisa C NielsenDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Rafael R G MachadoWorld Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brooke M MitchellWorld Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Allan J McConnellDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Nehad I SaadaDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Scott C WeaverWorld Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Institute for Human Infections and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Ping RenDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. Electronic address: piren@utmb.edu.
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses (WRCEVA)R24AI120942 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI WEAVER, SCOTT C · 2016 to 2024
$8.5M
NIAID NIH HHS R24 AI120942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tracking new and emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants has become increasingly important for public health responses, primarily because of variant-dependent transmission, disease severity, and treatment decisions. This evaluation compared Seegene Technologies Novaplex SARS-CoV-2 Variants I, II, and IV (I,II&IV) assays to detect known SARS-CoV-2 variants using traditional spike gene Sanger sequencing results as the gold standard reference. Both RNA extraction and extraction-free protocols were assessed. A total of 156 samples were included in this study. There was 100% (109/109) overall agreement (95% CI, 96.7%-100%) between the spike gene sequencing and the I,II&IV results using extracted RNA for the variants included in the Novaplex assay menus. The RNA extraction-free method was 91.7% (143/156) as sensitive (95% CI, 86.2%-95.5%) as the traditional RNA extraction method. Using the extraction-free method on samples with higher cycle threshold values (>30) resulted in some mutations not being detected, presumably due to lower nucleic acid concentrations in the original samples. In conclusion, the I,II&IV assays provide an accurate, rapid, and less labor-intensive method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and identifying known variants of interest and concern. The RNA extraction-free method for samples with cycle threshold of <30 could be cost-effective for surveillance purposes. However, spike gene sequencing retains the advantage of detecting more and new variants.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansMutationRNARNA

Identifiers

PMID35218945
PMCPMC8865930
OpenAlexW4213425798

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.