ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2023
Quantitative analysis of different respiratory specimens on two automated test systems for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous Detection and Differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses in Respiratory Specimens Using the VitaSIRODiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Herpesviruses and SARS-CoV-2: Viral Association with Oral Inflammatory Diseases.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is essential during the pandemic. Here, we compared the results of different respiratory specimens including anterior nasal swabs, pharyngeal swabs, saliva swabs, and gargle lavage samples to nasopharyngeal swabs on two automated SARS-CoV-2 test systems. Samples were collected and tested simultaneously from a total of 36 hospitalized symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 was performed on cobas®6800 (Roche) and NeuMoDx™ (Qiagen) systems. Both assays showed reliable detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with nasopharyngeal swabs showing the highest sensitivity. SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in other respiratory specimens were lower (mean 2.5 log10 copies/ml) or even undetectable in up to 20%. These data clearly indicate that not all respiratory materials are equally suitable for the management of hospitalized patients, especially, in the late phase of COVID-19, when the viral phase subsides and inflammation becomes the predominant factor, making detection of even lower viral loads increasingly important.
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.