ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Rapid Nucleic Acid Extraction Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-qPCR.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Direct Cell-to-PCR Lysis Buffer Using Optimized Non-Ionic Detergents for RNA-Extraction-Free RT-qPCR.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Indiscriminate Trans-Cleavage Activity of CRISPR/SuCas12a2 Enables Sensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2.ACS sensors · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Rapid Nucleic Acids Extraction Methods for Biosensor-Based Point-of-Care Solutions.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for DNA and RNA Viral Target.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Influence of the Omicron Variant on RNA Extraction and RT-qPCR Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a Laboratory in Brazil.Viruses · 2023Article
- Advances in Simple, Rapid, and Contamination-Free Instantaneous Nucleic Acid Devices for Pathogen Detection.Biosensors · 2023Review
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- Comparison of Two RNA Extraction Methods for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2020, humanity has been facing the COVID-19 pandemic, a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2. The world's response to pandemic went through the development of diagnostics, vaccines and medicines. Regarding diagnostics, an enormous challenge was faced due to shortage of materials to collect and process the samples, and to perform reliable mass diagnosis by RT-qPCR. In particular, time-consuming and high cost of nucleic acid extraction procedures have hampered the diagnosis; moreover, several steps in the routine for the preparation of the material makes the extracted sample susceptible to contamination. Here two rapid nucleic acid extraction reagents were compared as extraction procedures for SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples by singleplex and multiplex RT-qPCR analysis, using different transport media, samples with high and low viral load, and different PCR machines. As observed, rapid nucleic acid extraction procedures can be applied for reliable diagnosis using a TaqMan-based assay, over multiple platforms. Ultimately, prompt RNA extraction may reduce costs with reagents and plastics, the chances of contamination, and the overall time to diagnosis by RT-qPCR.
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.