ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparative Analysis of
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- First report of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection with chronic dermatophytosis in a lion (Panthera leo) ex situ at Colombia.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Characterization of Respiratory Viruses in Patients with Acute Respiratory Infection in the City of Barranquilla during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Pandemic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comprehensive Review of COVID-19: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Advancement in Diagnostic and Detection Techniques, and Post-Pandemic Treatment Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Development and Optimization of a Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR to Detect SARS-CoV-2 in Human Samples.International journal of microbiology · 2024Article
- Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid concentrations in samples used in INSTAND external quality assessment schemes.BMC research notes · 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
Abstract
We developed and standardized an efficient and cost-effective in-house RT-PCR method to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and other statistical parameters by different RT-qPCR methods including triplex, duplex, and simplex assays adapted from the initial World Health Organization- (WHO) recommended protocol. This protocol included the identification of the E envelope gene (E gene; specific to the Sarvecovirus genus), RdRp gene of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (specific for SARS-CoV-2), and RNase P gene as endogenous control. The detection limit of the E and the RdRp genes were 3.8 copies and 33.8 copies per 1 µL of RNA, respectively, in both triplex and duplex reactions. The sensitivity for the RdRp gene in the triplex and duplex RT-qPCR tests were 98.3% and 83.1%, respectively. We showed a decrease in sensitivity for the RdRp gene by 60% when the E gene acquired Ct values > 31 in the diagnostic tests. This is associated with the specific detection limit of each gene and possible interferences in the protocol. Hence, developing efficient and cost-effective methodologies that can be adapted to various health emergency scenarios is important, especially in developing countries or settings where resources are limited.
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.