Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36518569›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Evaluation and comparison of the sensitivity of three commercial RT-qPCR kits used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Santiago, Chile.

Roberto Luraschi, Álvaro Santibáñez, Carlos Barrera-Avalos, Eva Vallejos-Vidal, Carlos Mateluna-Flores, Javiera Alarcón, Javiera Cayunao, Andrea Mella-Torres, Felipe Hernández, Ailen Inostroza-Molina and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. RT-qPCR Testing and Performance Metrics in the COVID-19 Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roberto LuraschiCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Álvaro SantibáñezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Carlos Barrera-AvalosCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Eva Vallejos-VidalCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Carlos Mateluna-FloresCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javiera AlarcónCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Javiera CayunaoCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Andrea Mella-TorresCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Felipe HernándezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ailen Inostroza-MolinaCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Daniel ValdésCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Mónica ImaraiCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Claudio Acuña-CastilloCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Felipe E Reyes-LópezCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ana María SandinoCentro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Universidad de Santiago de Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is still in force, causing global public health challenges and threats. Although vaccination and herd immunity have proven to be the most efficient way to control the pandemic, massive and early testing of patients using the RT-qPCR technique is crucial for constant genomic surveillance. The appearance of variants of SARS-CoV-2 with new mutations can reduce the efficiency of diagnostic detection. In this sense, several commercial RT-qPCR kits have been the target of extensive analysis because low assay performance could lead to false-negative diagnoses. Methods: In this study, we evaluated the performance of three commercial RT-qPCR kits; Thermo Fisher (TaqMan 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v1), BGI and Roche (LightCycler Results: Under our best assay conditions, we found significant differences in Cq amplification values for control and viral probes, against the same nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs). In addition, in some cases, the sensitivity of the RT-qPCR kits decreased against viral variants. Conclusion: Our study suggests evaluating the RT-qPCR kits used to detect SARS-CoV-2 because variants such as Omicron, which has several mutations, can compromise their detection and underestimate viral circulation.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2ChileHumansNasopharynxPandemicsRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityRNA, ViralCOVID-19diagnostic sensitivitygenomic surveillanceRT-qPCRSARS-CoV-2 detectionvariants

Identifiers

PMID36518569
PMCPMC9742446
OpenAlexW4310029367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.