ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance Evaluation of Developed Bangasure™ Multiplex rRT-PCR Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Bangladesh: A Blinded Observational Study at Two Different Sites.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the performance of the in-house developed rRT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 RNA targeting the envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) genes with internal control as human RNase P. A total of 50 positive samples and 50 negative samples of SARS-CoV-2 were tested by a reference kit at site 1 and a subset (30 positives and 16 negatives) of these samples are tested blindly at site 2. The limit of detection (LoD) was calculated by using a replication-deficient complete SARS-CoV-2 genome and known copy numbers, where Pseudo-virus samples were used to evaluate accuracy. On site 1, among the 50 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples 24, 18, and eight samples showed high (Ct < 26), moderate (26 < Ct ≤ 32), and low (32 < Ct ≤ 38) viral load, respectively, whereas in site 2, out of 30 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples, high, moderate, and low viral loads were found in each of the 10 samples. However, SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in the negative sample. So, in-house assays at both sites showed 100% sensitivity and specificity with no difference observed between RT PCR machines. The Ct values of the in-house kit had a very good correlation with the reference kits. LoD was determined as 100 copies/mL. It also displayed 100% accuracy in mutant and wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus. This Bangasure™ RT-PCR kit shows excellent performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA compared to commercially imported CE-IVD marked FDA authorized kits.
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.