ReviewViruses2022
Strategies That Facilitate Extraction-Free SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests.
Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pipettes and Pipelines: The Weapons of Omics Sciences for a New Age of Clinical Studies.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Towards deployable CRISPR-based nucleic acid detection.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2026Review
- Evaluating extraction-free PCR for rapid detection of beta-lactam antibiotic resistance in urinary tract infection.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- A novel method for semi-quantitative detection of HPV16 and HPV18 mRNA with a low-cost, open-source fluorimeter.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Utility of Extraction-Free SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-qPCR for COVID-19 Testing in a Resource-Limited Setting.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- FlashPCR: Revolutionising qPCR by Accelerating Amplification through Low ∆T Protocols.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Improved protocol forExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the AdvanSure One-Stop COVID-19 Plus Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Using a Streamlined RNA Extraction Method.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Digital Microfluidic Multiplex RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Variants Discrimination.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Advances in Simple, Rapid, and Contamination-Free Instantaneous Nucleic Acid Devices for Pathogen Detection.Biosensors · 2023Review
- A Highly Sensitive Immunoassay for Determination of Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Capillary Blood Samples.Biomedicines · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented global demand for in vitro diagnostic reagents. Supply shortages and hoarding have impacted testing capacity which has led to inefficient COVID-19 case identification and transmission control, predominantly in developing countries. Traditionally, RNA extraction is a prerequisite for conducting SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); however, simplified methods of sample processing have been successful at bypassing typical nucleic acid extraction steps, enabling extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 NAAT workflows. These methods involve chemical and physical approaches that are inexpensive and easily accessible alternatives to overcome extraction kit supply shortages, while offering acceptable test performance. Here we provide an overview of three main sample preparation strategies that have been shown to facilitate extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 NAATs.
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.