ArticleImmunity, inflammation and disease2024
Evaluation of self-collected nasal, urine, and saliva samples for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 using an EUA approved RT-PCR assay and a laboratory developed LAMP SARS-CoV-2 test.
Article in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2024. 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.
- Evaluation of self-collected nasal, urine, and saliva samples for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 using an EUA approved RT-PCR assay and a laboratory developed LAMP SARS-CoV-2 test.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread throughout the world, millions of positive cases of COVID-19 were registered and, even though there are millions of people already vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a large part of the global population remains vulnerable to contracting the virus. Massive nasopharyngeal sample collection in Puerto Rico at the beginning of the pandemic was limited by the scarcity of trained personnel and testing sites. To increase SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing availability, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected nasal, saliva, and urine samples using the TaqPath reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 kit to detect SARS-CoV-2. We also created a colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) laboratory developed test (LDT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, as another strategy to increase the availability of molecular testing in community-based laboratories. Automated RNA extraction was performed in the KingFisher Flex instrument, followed by PCR quantification of SARS-CoV-2 on the 7500 Fast Dx RT-PCR using the TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 molecular test. Data was interpreted by the COVID-19 Interpretive Software from Applied Biosystems and statistically analyzed with Cohen's kappa coefficient (k). Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) for paired nasal and saliva samples showed moderate agreement (0.52). Saliva samples exhibited a higher viral load. We also observed 90% concordance between LifeGene-Biomarks' SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Colorimetric LAMP LDT and the TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 test. Our results suggest that self-collected saliva is superior to nasal and urine samples for COVID-19 testing. The results also suggest that the colorimetric LAMP LDT is a rapid alternative to RT-PCR tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test can be easily implemented in clinics, hospitals, the workplace, and at home; optimizing the surveillance and collection process, which helps mitigate global public health and socioeconomic upheaval caused by airborne pandemics.
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.