ArticleAMB Express2024
An alternative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection with use modified fluorescent in situ hybridization.
Article in AMB Express, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR) tests are the gold standard in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. However, despite high sensitivity and specificity, they have limitations that in some cases may result in false negative results. Therefore, it is reasonable to search for additional tools that could support microbiological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of the study was to develop a highly specific molecular test capable of detecting and visualizing SARS-CoV-2 infection. A universal probe and a set of 18 specific oligonucleotides with a FLAP sequence attached to them on both sides were designed to visualize SARS-CoV-2 virus infection based on the fluorescence in situ hybridization method (FISH). FISH conditions using the developed kit were standardized on the Vero CCL-81 cell line infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus. The method was tested on 290 nasopharyngeal swabs (collected in a doublet) from patients with clinical symptoms of SARS-CoV-2. Each one swab from the doublet was subjected to RNA isolation and amplification by rRT-PCR. From the second swab, a microscopic preparation was performed for FISH. The use of the rRT-PCR allowed obtaining 200 positive and 90 negative results, while our FISH method allowed for 220 positive results and 70 negative results. The differences obtained using both methods were statistically significant (p = 0.008). The obtained results support the use of FISH as an additional method in microbiological diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2.
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.