ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Two RNA Extraction Methods for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Viral RNA Extraction Protocols for Senecavirus A and Classical Swine Fever Virus.Folia microbiologica · 2025Article
- A semi-automated and high-throughput approach for the detection of honey bee viruses in bee samples.PloS one · 2024Article
- Direct capture and amplification of nucleic acids using a universal, elution-free magnetic bead-based method for rapid pathogen detection in multiple types of biological samples.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential in order to restrict the spread of the pandemic, and different approaches for SARS-CoV-2 testing have been proposed as cost-effective and less time-consuming alternatives. For virus detection, the real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique is still the "gold standard" for accuracy and reliability, but its performance is affected by the efficiency of nucleic acid extraction methods.
objectiveIn order to improve the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic workflow, we compared a "standard" commercially available kit, based on viral RNA extraction from human swab samples by magnetic beads, with its technological evolution. The two methods differ mainly in their time consumption (9 vs. 35 min).
methodsWe adopted the MAGABIO PLUS VIRUS DNA/RNA PURIFICATION KIT II (BIOER), defined as "standard", with the automatic extractor BIOER (GenePure Pro fully automatic nucleic acid purification system) to isolate RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. We tested this kit with a new faster version of the first one, defined as "rapid" (MAGABIO PLUS VIRUS RNA PURIFICATION KIT II). RESULTS AND
conclusionThe two evaluated procedures provided similar analytical results, but the faster method proved to be a more suitable tool for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs, due to a more rapid availability of results, which may contribute to improving both clinical decision making and patient safety.
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.