ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2024
Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other. Methods: we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP. Results: RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction. Discussion: our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance.
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.