Publication:
Comparison between five PCR techniques for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

dc.contributor.authorTenorio-Abreu, A
dc.contributor.authorRuiz-Castillo, A
dc.contributor.authorGuzmán-González, A F
dc.contributor.authorPeña-Monje, A
dc.contributor.authorSaavedra-Martín, J M
dc.contributor.authorFranco-Álvarez De Luna, F
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-03T14:35:22Z
dc.date.available2023-05-03T14:35:22Z
dc.date.issued2022-06-20
dc.description.abstractSince the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 appeared, there have been numerous techniques that have been developed for the diagnosis or monitoring of infection, both direct and serological techniques. Choosing a good diagnostic tool is essential for epidemiological control. The objective was to compare five commercialized RT-PCR techniques in real time, in sensitivity, specificity and agreement for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Five commercial RT-PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were compared. Eight known positive samples were taken and subjected to seven different dilutions or concentrations, and another 135 negative samples were used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and agreement values. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the Palex, Roche and GeneXpert techniques with respect to Seegene were identical, corresponding to 98.21%, 100%, 100% and 99.26% respectively. For Becton Dickinson the sensitivity was 89.28%, the specificity of 100%, the PPV of 100% and the NPV of 95.74%. The agreement using the Kappa index for Palex, Roche and GeneXpert was 0.9892, while the agreement for Becton Dickinson was with a Kappa index of 0.9215. All commercial RT-PCR kits had high sensitivities and specificities, as well as PPV, NPV, and concordance.
dc.identifier.doi10.37201/req/076.2020
dc.identifier.essn1988-9518
dc.identifier.pmcPMC9333123
dc.identifier.pmid35723605
dc.identifier.pubmedURLhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333123/pdf
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://seq.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/tenorio20jun2022.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10668/21828
dc.issue.number4
dc.journal.titleRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia
dc.journal.titleabbreviationRev Esp Quimioter
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationHospital Universitario Juan Ramón Jiménez
dc.page.number401-405
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.subjectRT-PCR
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2
dc.subjectcommercial kits
dc.subjectpooling
dc.subject.meshCOVID-19
dc.subject.meshCOVID-19 Testing
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshPolymerase Chain Reaction
dc.subject.meshSARS-CoV-2
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificity
dc.titleComparison between five PCR techniques for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
dc.title.alternativeComparación entre cinco técnicas de PCR para el diagnóstico del SARS-CoV-2.
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number35
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PMC9333123.pdf
Size:
142.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format