ArticleIJID regions2022
Simple and low-cost nucleic acid extraction methods for detection of SARS-CoV2 in self-collected saliva and dry oral swabs.
Article in IJID regions, 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ongoing need of alternative strategies for SARS-CoV-2 detection is undeniable. Self-collected samples without viral transport media (VTM), coupled with simple nucleic acid extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 PCR are beneficial. Objectives: To evaluate results of SARS-CoV-2 PCR using simple nucleic acid extraction methods from self -collected saliva and oral swabs without VTM. Methods: A cross-sectional single-centre study was conducted on 125 participants (101 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases and 24 controls). PCR was performed following five simple nucleic acid extraction methods on self -collect saliva and oral swabs without VTM and results were compared with gold standard PCR. For saliva, kit-based extraction (SKE), Proteinase K and Heat extraction (SPHE), only Heat extraction (SHE) methods and for dry oral swabs, Proteinase K and Heat extraction (DPHE) and only Heat extraction (DHE) was performed. Results: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in self-collected saliva and oral swabs. 93.07% were correctly classified as positive by SKE, 69.31% by SHE, 67.33% by SPHE, 67.33% by DPHE and 55.45% by DHE. Discriminant power of SKE was significantly higher than other methods (p-value < 0.001) with good- fair agreement of alternate extraction methods against gold standard. Conclusion: Combination of self-collected saliva/ oral-swab without VTM and alternative RNA extraction methods offer a simplified, economical substitute strategy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
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.