ArticleGenes & genomics2022
Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in the point-of-care using digital PCR-based Dr. PCR™ Di20K COVID-19 Detection Kit without viral RNA extraction.
Article in Genes & genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of novel digital real-time PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2, respiratory syncytial viruses, and influenza viruses in Ghana.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Article
- Rapid assays of SARS-CoV-2 virus and noble biosensors by nanomaterials.Nano convergence · 2024Review
- Comparison of digital PCR platforms using the molecular marker.Genomics & informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince COVID-19 was declared the pandemic by the WHO, it has continued to spread. There is a need for rapid, efficient, and accurate diagnostic kits and techniques to control its spread.
objectiveThe diagnostic capability of the qRT-PCR-based Real-Q 2019-nCoV Detection Kit and dPCR-based Dr. PCR™ Di20K COVID-19 Detection Kit was compared and evaluated.
methodsDiagnostic tests for COVID-19 were performed using two different COVID-19 kits and 301 individual specimens with confirmed COVID-19 positive/negative at the government-accredited medical institution. Assessment of diagnostic capability was measured through diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and dilutional linearity tests.
resultsThe COVID-19 diagnostic test results using two kits and 301 individual specimens perfectly matched the pre-diagnosis results of the medical institution. In addition, the measurement results of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were "1", indicating high diagnostic capability. Cohen's Kappa coefficient value is "1", which means that the diagnosis concordance between the two kits is "Almost Perfect". As a result of dilutional linearity tests to evaluate their detection capability, both kits were measured with very high detection reliability.
conclusionHere, we propose that the dPCR-based Dr. PCR™ Di20K COVID-19 Detection Kit has the advantages of the dPCR method reported in the previous study and is suitable for point-of-care testing (POCT) by overcoming the limitations of space, test time, cross-over contamination, and biosafety due to omitting RNA extraction process.
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.