ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of Viral Transport Medium and Inactivation Transport Medium Under Different Storage Conditions for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Using the cobas® 8800 System.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate and timely diagnosis is vital for the surveillance and containment of COVID-19. Traditional viral transport medium (VTM) for sample collection requires strict cold chain maintenance, which poses biosafety and logistical challenges, especially in resource-limited or remote settings. Inactivation transport medium (ITM), containing guanidinium thiocyanate, is designed for safe, room temperature (RT) transport. This study compared ITM with VTM for RNA stability and diagnostic efficiency using the cobas® 8800 system.
methodsIn this comparative observational study, oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 80 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and 20 healthy controls. For each participant, three swabs were collected: one for ITM and two for VTM. Samples in ITM were stored at RT (25-32 °C), and those in VTM at 4 °C and RT. All samples were tested by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) (cobas® 8800) on days zero, one, two, and three. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for ORF1a/b and E genes were compared across groups to assess RNA stability and detection efficiency.
resultsCt values remained stable across ITM and VTM at 4 °C for up to 72 hours, while VTM at RT showed a trend of higher Ct values, particularly by day three. Although not statistically significant, degradation was more evident in VTM at RT. A significant difference was observed for the E gene on day one (p = 0.001), favouring ITM. Negative controls remained consistently negative across all media and temperatures.
conclusionsITM provides RNA preservation and diagnostic performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection comparable to VTM, with the added benefits of RT stability and enhanced biosafety. Use of ITM may eliminate the need for cold chain logistics and reduce biohazard risks, improving the reliability and flexibility of COVID-19 testing in varied settings.
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.