ArticlePloS one2023
Performance characteristics and operational feasibility assessment of a CRISPR based tata MD CHECK diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTata MD CHECK SARS-CoV-2 kit 1.0, a CRISPR based reverse transcription PCR (TMC-CRISPR) test was approved by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for COVID-19 diagnosis in India. To determine the potential for rapid roll-out of this test, we conducted performance characteristic and an operational feasibility assessment (OFA) at a tertiary care setting.
interventionThe study was conducted at an ICMR approved COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratory of King Edward Memorial (KEM) hospital, Mumbai, India. The TMC-CRISPR test was evaluated against the gold-standard RT-PCR test using the same RNA sample extracted from fresh and frozen clinical specimens collected from COVID-19 suspects for routine diagnosis. TMC-CRISPR results were determined manually and using the Tata MD CHECK application. An independent agency conducted interviews of relevant laboratory staff and supervisors for OFA.
resultsOverall, 2,332 (fresh: 2,121, frozen: 211) clinical specimens were analysed of which, 140 (6%) were detected positive for COVID-19 by TMC-CRISPR compared to 261 (11%) by RT-PCR. Overall sensitivity and specificity of CRISPR was 44% (95% CI: 38.1%-50.1%) and 99% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.1%) respectively when compared to RT-PCR. Discordance between TMC-CRISPR and RT-PCR results increased with increasing Ct values and corresponding decreasing viral load (range: <20% to >85%). In the OFA, all participants indicated no additional requirements of training to set up RT PCR. However, extra post-PCR steps such as setting up the CRISPR reaction and handling of detection strips were time consuming and required special training. No significant difference was observed between manual and mobile app-based readings. However, issues such as erroneous results, difficulty in interpretation of faint bands, internet connectivity, data safety and security were highlighted as challenges with the app-based readings.
conclusionThe evaluated version-Tata MD CHECK SARS-CoV-2 kit 1.0 of TMC-CRISPR test cannot be considered as an alternative to the RT-PCR. There is a definite scope for improvement in this assay.
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.