Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35346227›Full record

ArticleVirology journal2022

SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR assays: In vitro comparison of 4 WHO approved protocols on clinical specimens and its implications for real laboratory practice through variant emergence.

Mariem Gdoura, Imen Abouda, Mehdi Mrad, Imen Ben Dhifallah, Zeineb Belaiba, Wasfi Fares, Anissa Chouikha, Maroua Khedhiri, Kaouther Layouni, Henda Touzi and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

17 authors.

Mariem GdouraFaculty of Pharmacy of Monastir, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia. mariemgdoura@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-6534
Imen AboudaFaculty of Pharmacy of Monastir, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.
Mehdi MradLaboratory of Biochemistry and Hormonology, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Imen Ben DhifallahLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Zeineb BelaibaLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Wasfi FaresLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Anissa ChouikhaLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Maroua KhedhiriLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Kaouther LayouniLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Henda TouziLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Amel SadraouiLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Walid HammemiLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Zina MeddebLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Nahed HoggaLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Sihem Ben FadhelLaboratory of Biomedical Genomics and Oncogenetics (LR16IPT05), Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Sondes Haddad-BoubakerLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Henda TrikiLaboratory of Clinical Virology, WHO Reference Laboratory for Poliomyelitis and Measles in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRT-PCR testing on nasopharyngeal swabs is a key component in the COVID-19 fighting, provided to use sensitive and specific SARS-CoV2 genome targets. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and to compare 4 widely used WHO approved RT-PCR protocols on real clinical specimens, to decrypt the reasons of the diverging results and to propose recommendations for the choice of the genome targets.

methods260 nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among the samples tested between Week-16, 2020 and week-16 2021, in the Institut Pasteur de Tunis, Tunisia, one of the referent laboratories of COVID-19 in Tunisia. All samples were tested by Charité, Berlin protocol (singleplex envelop (E) and singleplex RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)), Hong Kong Universiy, China protocol (singleplex nucleoprotein (N) and singleplex Open reading frame Orf1b), commercial test DAAN Gene® (using the CDC China protocol), (triplex N, Orf1ab with internal control) and Institut Pasteur Paris protocol (IPP) (triplex IP2(nsp9) and IP4 (nsp12) with internal control). For IPP, a selection from samples positive by IP2 but negative with IP4 was re-tested by exactly the same protocol but this time in singleplex. New results were described and analyzed.

resultsIn vitro analysis showed discordant results in 29.2% of cases (76 out of 260). The most discordant protocol is DAAN Gene® due to the false positive late signals with N target. Discordant results between the two protocol's targets are more frequent when viral load are low (high Ct values). Our results demonstrated that the multiplexing has worsened the sensitivity of the IP4 target.

conclusionWe provide concise recommendations for the choice of the genome targets, the interpretation of the results and the alarm signals which makes suspect a gene mutation.

Indexed as

COVID-19RNA, ViralHumansLaboratoriesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityWorld Health OrganizationRNA, ViralCOVID-19DiagnosisFalse negativeFalse positiveIn vitroRT-PCRSARS-CoV2SensitivityVariant

Identifiers

PMID35346227
PMCPMC8959265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.