ArticleIJID regions2021
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Samples: Target-specific Analysis of Qualitative Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction(RT-PCR) Diagnostic Kits.
Article in IJID regions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- 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
- Extraction Bottleneck in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of an Alternative Protocol Derived from Veterinary Use.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- New phase of diagnostics with India's first home-based COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Detection kit: Brief evaluation and validation of CoviSelf™ through a pilot study.Indian journal of medical microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to the rise of many available modalities for diagnosis. One such modality is the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) kits which require evaluation amongst the many available commercial kits in the market.
methodsWe conducted a performance evaluation of twelve RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 commercial kits. A total of 75 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal clinical samples were selected with their cycling threshold (Ct) values. Inclusion of 5 gene targets: E gene, N gene, S gene, RdRp and ORF1ab were assessed. Data was analyzed using R software version 4.1.1 and Microsoft Excel.
resultsWe observe that, the positive sample's Ct values differs significantly across the 12 diagnostic kits. However, for gene-specific analysis, we observe that, positive sample's Ct values does not differ significantly across gene targets. There is significant difference in Ct values in Commercial kits targeting all genes except S-gene. All the commercial kits Altona (E and S genes), Thermo (ORF1ab and N genes), Multiplex (E, ORF1ab, RdRdp genes), Meril (N and ORF1ab genes), S D Biosensor (E and ORF1ab genes), Lab Gun (RdRp and N genes) and Lab systems (ORF1ab and E genes) scored a sensitivity of 100%. All other kits scored sensitivity above 95% and lowest sensitivity with the Genes2me (E gene) and Genes2me (RdRp) at 95.08% each. All kits were 100% specific.
conclusionThis study provides an accurate comprehensive assessment of the different kits in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 which may promote standardization of testing across laboratories.
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.