Selected article for: "diagnosis standard and viral load"

Author: Yu, Fei; Xie, Guoliang; Zheng, Shufa; Han, Dongsheng; Bao, Jiaqi; Zhang, Dan; Feng, Baihuan; Wang, Qi; Zou, Qianda; Wang, Ruonan; Yang, Xianzhi; Chen, Weizhen; Lou, Bin; Chen, Yu
Title: Assessment of the Diagnostic Ability of Four Detection Methods Using Three Sample Types of COVID-19 Patients
  • Cord-id: xl1u89bg
  • Document date: 2021_6_7
  • ID: xl1u89bg
    Snippet: BACKGROUND: Viral nucleic acid detection is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, unsuitable sample types and laboratory detection kits/methods lead to misdiagnosis, which delays the prevention and control of the pandemic. METHODS: We compared four nucleic acid detection methods [two kinds of reverse transcription polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR A: ORF1ab and N testing; RT-PCRB: only ORF1ab test
    Document: BACKGROUND: Viral nucleic acid detection is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, unsuitable sample types and laboratory detection kits/methods lead to misdiagnosis, which delays the prevention and control of the pandemic. METHODS: We compared four nucleic acid detection methods [two kinds of reverse transcription polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR A: ORF1ab and N testing; RT-PCRB: only ORF1ab testing), reverse transcription recombinase aided amplification (RT-RAA) and droplet digital RT-PCR (dd-RT-PCR)] using 404 samples of 72 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, including oropharyngeal swab (OPS), nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and saliva after deep cough, to evaluate the best sample type and method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. RESULTS: Among the four methods, dd-RT-PCR exhibited the highest positivity rate (93.0%), followed by RT-PCR B (91.2%) and RT-RAA (91.2%), while the positivity rate of RT-PCR A was only 71.9%. The viral load in OPS [24.90 copies/test (IQR 15.58-129.85)] was significantly lower than that in saliva [292.30 copies/test (IQR 20.20-8628.55)] and NPS [274.40 copies/test (IQR 33.10-2836.45)]. In addition, if OPS samples were tested alone by RT-PCR A, only 21.4% of the COVID-19 patients would be considered positive. The accuracy of all methods reached nearly 100% when saliva and NPS samples from the same patient were tested simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection methods should be fully evaluated before use. High-positivity rate methods such as RT-RAA and dd-RT-PCR should be considered when possible. Furthermore, saliva after deep cough and NPS can greatly improve the accuracy of the diagnosis, and testing OPS alone is not recommended.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • absolute quantification and acid detection: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • absolute quantification and acid detection method: 1, 2
    • absolute quantification and acid testing: 1
    • accurate rapid and acid detection: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • accurate rapid and acid detection method: 1
    • accurate rapid and acid extraction: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • accurate rapid and acid testing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
    • accurate rapid and admission time: 1, 2, 3
    • accurate rapid and low respiratory: 1, 2, 3
    • accurate rapid diagnosis and acid detection: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • accurate rapid diagnosis and acid extraction: 1, 2
    • accurate rapid diagnosis and acid testing: 1, 2
    • acid detection and admission time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • acid detection and low respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • acid detection and low respiratory tract: 1
    • acid testing and admission time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • acid testing and low respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • admission time and longitudinal group: 1
    • admission time and low respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4