ArticlePloS one2022
Real-Time fast PCR amplification using designated and conventional real time thermal cycler systems: COVID-19 perspective.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Fabrication of Cost-Effective Microchip-Based Device Using Sandblasting Technique for Real-Time Multiplex PCR Detection.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Rapid Multiplex Reverse Transcription-Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Individual and Pooled Samples.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Genomic and Temporal Analysis of Deletions Correlated to qRT-PCR Dropout in N Gene in Alpha, Delta and Omicron Variants.Viruses · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to shorten multiplex RT-PCR run time for detection of SARS CoV-2 N1 and N2 sequences and human RNase P (RP) sequence as internal mRNA control using conventional and designated real time thermal cycler systems. Optimization of Fast PCR protocol using plasmid-based N1 and N2 positive control and synthetic version of human RP was done on Applied Biosystems (ABI) QuantStudioTM5 (conventional), ABI 7500 Fast Dx (designated), and CFX96 Touch Real Time Detection System, Bio-Rad (conventional). Finally, a performance evaluation of Fast PCR was performed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and precision. For a 40-cycle PCR with optimized Fast PCR protocols on QuantStudioTM5, ABI 7500 Fast Dx, and CFX96 Touch (conventional), standard/regular versus Fast PCR run times (min) were 84 vs. 49, 96 vs. 48, and 103 vs. 61, thereby saving 35, 48, and 43 min, respectively. For each thermal cycler, Standard and Fast PCR generated identical shapes of fluorescence curves, Ct values, and (3) R2 (0.95 to 0.99) for 5 10-log dilution panels of each positive control. The fast PCR approach generated results with 100% sensitivity and specificity. Median test comparisons between standard PCR and Fast PCR Cts of COVID-19 samples did not produce significance (p>0.5), suggesting that Fast PCR and Standard PCR were comparable. Also, the median and mean of each target had closely-related values, further suggesting that the two approaches were comparable. That is, there is an equivalency between Conventional and Fast PCR instruments for detection of COVID-19.
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.