ArticleRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia2022
Comparison between five PCR techniques for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSince the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 appeared, there have been numerous techniques that have been developed for the diagnosis or monitoring of infection, both direct and serological techniques. Choosing a good diagnostic tool is essential for epidemiological control. The objective was to compare five commercialized RT-PCR techniques in real time, in sensitivity, specificity and agreement for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsFive commercial RT-PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were compared. Eight known positive samples were taken and subjected to seven different dilutions or concentrations, and another 135 negative samples were used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and agreement values.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the Palex, Roche and GeneXpert techniques with respect to Seegene were identical, corresponding to 98.21%, 100%, 100% and 99.26% respectively. For Becton Dickinson the sensitivity was 89.28%, the specificity of 100%, the PPV of 100% and the NPV of 95.74%. The agreement using the Kappa index for Palex, Roche and GeneXpert was 0.9892, while the agreement for Becton Dickinson was with a Kappa index of 0.9215.
conclusionsAll commercial RT-PCR kits had high sensitivities and specificities, as well as PPV, NPV, and concordance.
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.