Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262000›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2021

Comparative performances of seven quantitative Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction assays (RT-qPCR) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in samples from individuals suspected of COVID-19 in São Paulo, Brazil.

Lucila Okuyama Fukasawa, Cláudio Tavares Sacchi, Maria Gisele Gonçalves, Ana Paula Silva Lemos, Samanta Cristine Grassi Almeida, Adele Caterino-de-Araujo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits: a comparative study.Beni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

6 authors.

Lucila Okuyama FukasawaCentro de Imunologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP 01246-902, Brazil.
Cláudio Tavares SacchiLaboratório Estratégico, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Gisele GonçalvesCentro de Imunologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP 01246-902, Brazil.
Ana Paula Silva LemosCentro de Bacteriologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Samanta Cristine Grassi AlmeidaCentro de Bacteriologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Adele Caterino-de-AraujoCentro de Imunologia, Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Coordenadoria de Controle de Doenças, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, SP 01246-902, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Brazil is the second largest country with COVID-19 positive cases worldwide. Due to the potent spread of the virus and the scarcity of kits and supplies, the Brazilian Ministry of Health has granted authorization for the use of kits available during this emergency, without an accurate evaluation of their performance. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of seven molecular assays/kits available in São Paulo, Brazil, for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Materials and methods: A total of 205 nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples from suspected cases of COVID-19, were tested using the following assays: (i) GeneFinder COVID-19 plus RealAmp kit; (ii) 2019-nCoV RNA PCR-Fluorescence Probing, Da An Gene Co.; (iii) in-house RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 IAL; (iv) 2019-nCoV kit, IDT; (v) molecular SARS-CoV-2 (E) kit, Bio-Manguinhos; (vi) Allplex 2019-nCoV modified Assay, Seegene Inc, and (vii) Biomol one-step COVID-19 kit, IBMP. The criteria for determining a SARS-CoV-2 true positive result included the cycle threshold cut-off values, the characteristics of exponential/linear curves, the gene target diversity, and a positive result in at least two assays. Results: The overall sensitivity of the assays listed were GeneFinder 83.6%, Da An Gene 100.0%, IAL 90.4%, IDT 94.6%, Bio-Manguinhos 87.7%, Allplex 97.3%, and IBMP 87.7%. The minor sensitive gene target was RdRP. Although all assays had a Cohen's Kappa index ≥0.893, the best tests used multiplex assays identifying Conclusion: All assays tested accurate for diagnosis, but considering cost-effectiveness (cost, time consumption, number of samples tested, and performance), the in-house IAL assay was ideal for COVID-19 diagnosis in São Paulo, Brazil.

Indexed as

Assay performancesCDC, center for disease controlCI, confidence intervalCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cost-effectivenessCOVID-19, Coronavirus disease 2019Ct, cycle thresholdCut-off, Ct limit of positivityCV, coefficient of variation in percentageCy5, Cyanine 5DiagnosisE, envelopeFAM, fluorescein amiditeHE, hemagglutinin esteraseHEX, hexachloro fluoresceinIAL, Instituto Adolfo LutzIC, internal controlMERS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndromeM, membraneN, nucleocapsidORF1ab, open-reading frame of ORF1ab regionPAHO, Pan American Health OrganizationRdRP, RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseReverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)ROX, carboxy-X-rhodamineRP, human ribonuclease pRT-qPCR, reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reactionSARS-CoV-2SARS, severe acute respiratory syndromeSD, standard deviationSevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)S, spikeVIC, 2′-chloro-7′-phenyl-1,4-dichloro-6-carboxyfluoresceinWHO, World Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID35262000
PMCPMC8019594

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.