ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
Comparison of extraction-based and elution-based polymerase chain reaction testing, and automated and rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the differences in testing performance of extraction-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, elution-based direct PCR assay, and rapid antigen detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We used the MagNA Pure 24 System (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) or magLEAD 12gC (Precision System Science Co., Ltd.) for RNA extraction, mixed the concentrates with either the LightMix Modular SARS-CoV PCR mixture (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) or Takara SARS-CoV-2 direct PCR detection kit (Takara Bio Inc.), and amplified it using COBAS® z480 (Roche Diagnostics K.K.). For elution-based PCR, we directly applied clinical samples to the Takara SARS-CoV-2 direct PCR detection kit before the same amplification step. Additionally, we performed Espline SARS-CoV-2 (Fuji Rebio Co., Ltd.) for rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and used Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Fuji Rebio Co., Ltd.) and Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) for automated antigen tests (ATs). Extraction-based and elution-based PCR tests detected the virus up to 214-216 and 210 times dilution, respectively. ATs remained positive up to 24-26 times dilution, while RDT became negative after 22 dilutions. For 153 positive samples, positivity rates of the extraction-based PCR assay were 85.6% to 98.0%, while that of the elution-based PCR assay was 73.2%. Based on the RNA concentration process, extraction-based PCR assays were superior to elution-based direct PCR assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
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.