ArticlePloS one2023
Validation of saline, PBS and a locally produced VTM at varying storage conditions to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus by qRT-PCR.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Pandemic Respiratory Virus Epidemiological Surveillance Trial - A Self-swab Surveillance System for Respiratory Viruses Nested Within FluTracking.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Impact of Transport Media on IL-33 Levels in Samples From Patients With Viral Respiratory Infections.Journal of immunology research · 2026Article
- Standardization of Microsampling Technologies for Accurate Sensing and Reliable Diagnostics.ACS sensors · 2025Review
- Utility of Extraction-Free SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-qPCR for COVID-19 Testing in a Resource-Limited Setting.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessment of DNA/RNA Defend Pro: An Inactivating Sample Collection Buffer for Enhanced Stability, Extraction-Free PCR, and Rapid Antigen Testing of Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Coronavirus Disease-2019 tests require a Nasopharyngeal (NP) and/or Oropharyngeal (OP) specimen from the upper airway, from which virus RNA is extracted and detected through quantitative reverse transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR). The viability of the virus is maintained after collection by storing the NP/OP swabs in Viral Transport Media (VTM). We evaluated the performance of four transport media: locally manufactured ("REVITAL") Viral Transport Media (RVTM), Standard Universal Transport Media (SUTM), PBS and 0.9% (w/v) NaCl (normal saline). We used laboratory cultured virus to evaluate: i) viral recovery and maintaining integrity at different time periods and temperatures; ii) stability in yielding detectable RNA consistently for all time points and conditions; and iii) their overall accuracy. Four vials of SARS-CoV-2 cultured virus (2 high and 2 low concentration samples) and 1 negative control sample were prepared for each media type (SUTM, RVTM, PBS and normal saline) and stored at the following temperatures, -80°C, 4°C, 25°C and 37°C for 7 days. Viral RNA extractions and qRT-PCR were performed at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 days after inoculation with the cultured virus to assess virus stability and viral recovery. Ct values fell over time at 25°C and 37°C, but normal saline, PBS, RVTM and SUTM all showed comparable performance in maintaining virus integrity and stability allowing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Overall, this study demonstrated that normal saline, PBS and the locally manufactured VTM can be used for COVID-19 sample collection and testing, thus expanding the range of SARS-CoV-2 viral collection media.
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.