ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of a novel lyophilized-pellet-based 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit for the diagnosis of 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. 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.
- Optimization and Benchmarking of RT-LAMP-CRISPR-Cas12a for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has swept the world and poses a serious threat to human health. In the post-pandemic-era, we must remain vigilant against the co-infection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. More accurate and convenient detection methods are required for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 due to its prolonged existence. In this study, the application value of a novel lyophilized-pellet-based 2019-nCoV nucleic acid diagnostic kit (PCoV-Kit) was evaluated by comparing it with a conventional liquid diagnostic kit (LCoV-Kit). We assessed the sensitivity, precision, accuracy, specificity, and amplification efficiency of PCoV-Kit and LCoV-Kit using diluted SARS-CoV-2 RNA reference materials. The results showed that both kits had high sensitivity, precision, accuracy, and specificity. A total of 2,033 oropharyngeal swab specimens collected during mass screening in Fuzhou in December 2022 were applied for the consistency analysis of the two reagents. In the detection of clinical oropharyngeal swab specimens, although the positive rate of PCoV-Kit (19.28%) was slightly lower than that of LCoV-Kit (20.86%), statistical analysis demonstrated a high degree of consistency between the test results obtained using both kit (χ2 = 1.57, P>0.05; Kappa coefficient = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.88-0.93). In conclusion, the use of lyophilized PCoV-Kit provides a non-inferior assay for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
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.