ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Diagnostic performance of the Qiaprep amp Viral RNA UM kit for the detection of COVID-19 compared to RT-PCR.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid inactivation and sample preparation for SARS-CoV-2 PCR-based diagnostics using TNA-Cifer Reagent E.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: RT-PCR is the currently recommended laboratory method for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nevertheless, to carry out this assay, numerous manual steps are necessary, but they are long lasting and error-prone. A new sample preparation solution was launched, the Qiaprep & amp Viral RNA UM kit, that combines a short, liquid-based sample preparation with one-step RT-PCR amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2. Such alternative allows reducing the handling of samples and obtaining a result in a shorter period of time. The objective of the study was to compare the performance of the kit with RT-PCR. Methods: A prospective trial was carried out in the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary care hospital. The pharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs included in the study were taken from patients who underwent medical consultation because compatible COVID-19 symptoms. Samples were processed simultaneously for the reference RT-PCR and by the QIA P&A kit. Results: 190 samples were included in the clinical trial. The reference RT-PCR method indicated that 125 (66%) samples, out of the 190, were positive. The QIA P&A kit showed 112 positive samples for SARS-CoV-2. The QIA P&A kit has a sensitivity of 86% to detect SARS-CoV-2 and a 100% specificity, the positive predictive value was of 96%, the negative predictive value 78%, and the obtained Kappa value was 0,76. QIA P&A kit showed a lower mean cycle threshold compared with the diagnostic standard, with a statistically significant difference ( Conclusion: The QIA P&A kit has an acceptable, yet not optimal performance for sample preparation and amplification of SARS-CoV-2 and further studying is required for it to be validated as a cost-effective, rapid diagnostic method for detecting infections.
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.