ArticleHeliyon2023
Evaluation of an automated CRISPR-based diagnostic tool for rapid detection of COVID-19.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Sensitive and Specific RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a Assay for Intrahepatic Quantification of HBV cccDNA.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Field-deployable porcine epidemic diarrhea virus diagnostics utilizing CRISPR-Cas13a.Virulence · 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of an automated commercial CRISPR/Cas based technology was evaluated and compared with routine RT-PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19. Suspected and discharged COVID-19 cases were included and tested with CRISPR-based SARS-CoV-2 test and RT-PCR assay using throat swab and sputum specimens. The diagnostic yield was calculated and compared using the McNemar test. A total of 437 patients were included for analysis, including COVID-19 (n = 171), discharged cases (n = 155), and others (n = 111). For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 test had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.2% (168/171) and 100.0% (266/266), respectively; the RT-PCR test had a sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% (171/171) and 100.0% (266/266), respectively. No significant difference was found in the sensitivity of CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR. In conclusion, the CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 test had a comparable performance with RT-PCR and showed several advantages, such as short assay time, low cost, and no requirement for expensive equipment.
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.