ArticleMicroorganisms2023
Extraction Bottleneck in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of an Alternative Protocol Derived from Veterinary Use.
Article in Microorganisms, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus.Microorganisms · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic represented a challenge for health-care systems, and a major bottleneck in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was the unavailability of extraction reagents. To overcome this limitation, we performed a comparative analysis to evaluate the performance of an alternative extraction protocol derived from veterinary use adapted to an open robotic platform (Testing method). A total of 73 nasopharyngeal swabs collected for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection were simultaneously extracted with the Testing protocol and the laboratory Standard of Care in order to assess the performance of the first one. The Cohen's coefficient between both procedures was excellent (K Value = 0.955). Analysis of cycle threshold and linear regression showed a significant correlation between the two methods for each tested genetic target. Although validated for veterinary applications, the Testing method showed excellent performances in RNA extraction, with several advantages: lower sample input volume, the possibility to overcome the lack of deep-well plates and adaptability to robotic liquid handlers.
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.