ArticleScientific reports2023
Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR diagnostic tests need obligatory internal validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- TAPPR PCR assay design-targeted, automated, primer and probe retrieval for scalable molecular assay design.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Rapid and Sensitive Detection of RNA Viruses through Imaging of Marker Molecules Derived from Designed Circular DNA Probes.Small methods · 2025Article
- Review
- Novel Strategies to Profile SARS-CoV-2 and Human Lung Proteome: Inflammatory Pathways in the Spotlight.BioMed research international · 2025Review
- Development of a new quantitative RT-PCR to detect lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Article
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
Although infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) does not appear to be as serious a threat to public health as it was in 2020-2021, the increased transmissibility of multiple Omicron descendants may constitute a continuous challenge for health care systems, and reliable detection of new variants is still imperative. This study evaluates the performance of three SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests: Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real Time Multiplex RT-PCR Kit (Liferiver); Vitassay qPCR SARS-CoV-2 (Vitaassay) and TaqPath COVID‑19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The analytical sensitivity of the assays as well as their specificity were determined with the use of synthetic nucleic acid standards and clinical samples. All assays appeared to be 100% specific for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in general and the Omicron variant in particular. The LOD determined during this validation was 10 viral RNA copies/reaction for Liferiver and TaqPath and 100 viral RNA copies for Vitassay. We cannot exclude that the LOD for the Vitassay might be lower and close to the manufacturer's declared value of ≥ 20 genome copies/reaction, as we obtained 90% positive results for 10 viral RNA copies/reaction. Mean Ct values at the concentration of 10 viral RNA copies/reaction for the Liferiver, Vitassay and TaqPath kits (35, 37 and 33, respectively) were significantly lower than the cutoff values declared by the manufacturers (≤ 41, ≤ 40 and ≤ 37, respectively). We suggest reporting outcomes based on LOD and cutoff Ct values determined during internal validation rather than those declared by the assays' producers.
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.