Comparison of three molecular diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection: Evaluation of analytical sensitivity and clinical performance
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Ha Nui | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Soo-Young | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lim, Chae Seung | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Jung | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-09T16:42:00Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-05-09T16:42:00Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2022-05-09 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022-02 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0887-8013 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/140851 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background Currently, SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection using real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the standard diagnostic test for COVID-19 infection. Various rRT-PCR assays are currently used worldwide, targeting different genes of the SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) of Allplex SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV assay (Seegene), Standard M nCoV real-time detection kit (SD Biosensor), and U-TOP COVID-19 detection kit (Seasun Biomaterials) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Methods Two hundred and forty-nine nasopharyngeal swab samples were evaluated to compare the clinical performance of the rRT-PCR assays. For the analytical performance evaluation, two RNA controls with known viral loads-SARS-CoV-2 RNA control and SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control-were used to investigate the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the B.1.351 lineage. Results Limits of detection ranged from 650 to 1300 copies/ml for rRT-PCR assays, and the mean differences in cycle threshold (C-t) values of the two RNA controls were within 1.0 for each target in the rRT-PCR assays (0.05-0.73), without any prominent C-t value shift or dropouts in the SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control. Using the consensus criterion as the reference standard, 89 samples were positive, whereas 160 were negative. The overall clinical performance of rRT-PCR assays was comparable (sensitivity 98.88%-100%; specificity 99.38%-100%), whereas the sensitivities of each target gene were more variable. Conclusions The three rRT-PCR assays showed comparable analytical sensitivity and clinical performance. The analytical and clinical sensitivities of each target gene were influenced more by the primer and probe design than the target gene itself. | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | WILEY | - |
dc.subject | GUIDELINES | - |
dc.subject | COVID-19 | - |
dc.title | Comparison of three molecular diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection: Evaluation of analytical sensitivity and clinical performance | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Yoon, Jung | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/jcla.24242 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85122688657 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000741400000001 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS, v.36, no.2 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS | - |
dc.citation.title | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS | - |
dc.citation.volume | 36 | - |
dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.type.docType | Article | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | Y | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Medical Laboratory Technology | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Medical Laboratory Technology | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | GUIDELINES | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | COVID-19 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | COVID-19 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | PCR | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | performance evaluation | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | SARS-CoV-2 | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(02841) 서울특별시 성북구 안암로 14502-3290-1114
COPYRIGHT © 2021 Korea University. All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.