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.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance Analysis of Commercial SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection Assays: Implications for Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, and Diagnostic Response Time.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of two nanomaterial labels for detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen to improve analytical performance of lateral flow immunoassays.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Intra-host diversity of SARS-CoV-2 in children with long-term and short-term excretion in nasopharyngeal samples.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 excretion and genetic evolution in nasopharyngeal and stool samples from primary immunodeficiency and immunocompetent pediatric patients.Virology journal · 2025Article
- A Longitudinal Study in Tunisia to Assess the Anti-RBD IgG and IgA Responses Induced by Three Different COVID-19 Vaccine Platforms.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Development of a robust TaqMan probe-based one-step multiplex RT-qPCR for simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Nucleocapsid single point-mutation associated with drop-out on RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Development of a national proficiency test for SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR in Colombia.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Digital Microfluidic Multiplex RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Variants Discrimination.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Analytical performance of rapid nucleic acid detection assays and routine RT-qPCR assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Shanghai, China in 2022.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Starting from scratch: Step-by-step development of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-LAMP.PloS one · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 excretion kinetics in nasopharyngeal and stool samples from the pediatric population.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Serology: Utility and Limits of Different Antigen-Based Tests through the Evaluation and the Comparison of Four Commercial Tests.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Preparation of the luciferase-labeled antibody for improving the detection sensitivity of viral antigen.Virology journal · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.