ArticleFolia microbiologica2025
Comparison of Viral RNA Extraction Protocols for Senecavirus A and Classical Swine Fever Virus.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2025. 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.
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
This study evaluated four commercial viral RNA extraction protocols using samples inactivated with TRIzol®, aiming to detect Senecavirus A (SV-A) and Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV). The tested kits were: RNeasy® (Qiagen), IndiSpin (Indical), Aurum (BioRad), and Direct-zol (Zymo), which were compared to the traditional method with Tri Reagent (Sigma). The analyses were based on the sensitivity and speed of extractions in a routine laboratory setting. The results showed that adaptations in the protocols can increase detection sensitivity. Clinical samples were processed using different protocol variations, with RNeasy® demonstrating notable performance, including samples collected using GenoTube®, which suggests its viability for field molecular diagnosis. The study concludes that, although TRIzol® is effective, alternative methods offer practicality, shorter extraction time, and equivalent or superior sensitivity, especially in clinical samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40954373What 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.