ArticleScientific reports2023
Optimization of extraction-free protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a commercial rRT-PCR assay.
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 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrafast Plasmonic Nanocavity Thermocycler for Direct Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR at a Point-of-Care Level.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Evaluating extraction-free PCR for rapid detection of beta-lactam antibiotic resistance in urinary tract infection.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of proteinase K and dithiothreitol as pretreatments for extracting nucleic acids from respiratory samples for multiplex PCR.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- A new approach for detecting HPV DNA in cervical swabs: comparison of nucleic acid extraction with direct PCR.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Dried Blood Matrix as a New Material for the Detection of DNA Viruses.Advanced healthcare materials · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the ongoing global fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the sample preparation process for real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) faces challenges due to time-consuming steps, labor-intensive procedures, contamination risks, resource demands, and environmental implications. However, optimized strategies for sample preparation have been poorly investigated, and the combination of RNase inhibitors and Proteinase K has been rarely considered. Hence, we investigated combinations of several extraction-free protocols incorporating heat treatment, sample dilution, and Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors, and validated the effectiveness using 120 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 62 negative clinical samples. Combining sample dilution and heat treatment with Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors addition exhibited the highest sensitivity (84.26%) with a mean increase in cycle threshold (Ct) value of + 3.8. Meanwhile, combined sample dilution and heat treatment exhibited a sensitivity of 79.63%, accounting for a 38% increase compared to heat treatment alone. Our findings highlight that the incorporation of Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors with sample dilution and heat treatment contributed only marginally to the improvement without yielding statistically significant differences. Sample dilution significantly impacts SARS-CoV-2 detection, and sample conditions play a crucial role in the efficiency of extraction-free methods. Our findings may provide insights for streamlining diagnostic testing, enhancing its accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.
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.