ArticleBiosensors2026
Comparative Evaluation of Rapid Nucleic Acids Extraction Methods for Biosensor-Based Point-of-Care Solutions.
Article in Biosensors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Direct Cell-to-PCR Lysis Buffer Using Optimized Non-Ionic Detergents for RNA-Extraction-Free RT-qPCR.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Microfluidic and Paper-Based Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Systems for Decentralized Diagnostics and Biosurveillance.Micromachines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The translation of nucleic acid amplification into practical point-of-care and biosensor-integrated diagnostics is still significantly impeded by the necessity for rapid sample preparation. For this reason, a broad comparison of seven commercially available kits for DNA/RNA extraction containing their temperature-related adjustments was performed. Extracts isolated from SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swabs, viral stocks, as well as laboratory-prepared suspensions of clinically relevant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were evaluated by recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) and real-time PCR. In addition, the impact of transport media for SARS-CoV-2 samples was investigated. Extraction performance varied markedly according to the kit, pathogen, sample background. For SARS-CoV-2, rapid extraction was more effective for samples collected in viral transport medium than in inactivation buffer. Across bacterial targets, performance was species dependent, highlighting substantial differences in compatibility between simplified extraction workflows and downstream amplification. Among the rapid methods tested, a simplified QuickExtract protocol (95 °C, 5 min) provided the most consistent overall results, although it did not uniformly match the reference silica-based method for all targets. In conclusion, these results demonstrate that rapid nucleic acid extraction must be thoroughly evaluated as an essential element of the entire sample-to-answer workflow, rather than being chosen as a standalone preprocessing step for point-of-care molecular diagnostics.
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.