ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2026
Evaluation of the Truenat® chip-based real-time PCR platform for infectious disease diagnostics.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the Trueprep/Truelab platform with four Truenat assays (COVID-19, Methods: Remnant clinical specimens and commercial controls were analyzed under routine conditions. Performance metrics included accuracy, reproducibility, limit of detection (LOD), linearity, and specificity, when applicable. Each analyte was tested in replicates, and results were compared with established reference methods. Results: The Truenat COVID-19 assay achieved 100% agreement with the reference and LOD of 500 copies/mL. Truenat MTB showed 95% concordance with the comparator, though repeat runs were occasionally required (7.3%). Malaria assays demonstrated high reproducibility and linearity (R Conclusion: Truenat assays showed reliable analytical performance, especially for COVID-19. While MTB detection remains more robust with Xpert Ultra in low-burden cases, Truenat provides a viable point-of-care alternative in resource-limited settings. For malaria and leptospirosis, broader clinical validation is needed before routine implementation in our service.
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.