Validation of an extraction-free RT-PCR protocol for detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA
Brown, J. R.; Atkinson, L.; Shah, D.; Harris, K.
Show abstract
In light of supply chain failures for reagents and consumables needed for purification of nucleic acid for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR, we aim to verify the performance and utility of a non-extraction protocol for RT-PCR ("direct RT-PCR"). We report improved sensitivity compared to earlier reports of direct RT-PCR testing of swab samples, in particular at the lower limit of detection (sensitivity 93% overall; 100% for specimens with high to moderate viral titre, Ct <34; 81% for specimens with a low viral titre, Ct [≥]34). Sensitivity is improved (from 90 to 93%) by testing in duplicate. We recommend swabs are re-suspended in water to minimise PCR inhibition. A cellular target is necessary to control for PCR inhibition and specimen quality. Direct RT-PCR is best suited to population level screening where results are not clinically actionable, however in the event of a critical supply chain failure direct RT-PCR is fit for purpose for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results from our study offer front-line laboratories additional reagent options for performing extraction-free RT-PCR protocols.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an open-source, extraction-less “direct” RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples 96%
- The implementation of a rapid sample preparation method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a diagnostic laboratory in South Africa 95%
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 96%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 95%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for in vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories 96%
- Assessment of sample pooling for clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing 96%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 95%
- Field performance of NowCheck rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in Kisumu County, western Kenya 94%
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Acceptable Performance of the Abbott ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals with Confirmed COVID-19 94%
- Validation of a Single-step, Single-tube Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA 94%
- Evaluation of the ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals During the Omicron Wave 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.