Rapid, Reliable and Robust approach for extraction-free RT-PCR based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical setting to expedite large scale screening
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Rapid, reliable and robust method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is an indispensable need for diagnostics. The development of diagnostic method will aid to address further waves of the pandemic potentially with rapid surveillance of disease; and to allay the fears. To meet this challenge, we have developed a rapid RT-qPCR method for the detection of 3 target genes or confirmatory genes in less than 30 minutes. The assay showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity when tested on 120 samples. We compared a conventional extraction based method with extraction-free method, and then further reduced the run time of extraction free method. Additionally, we have validated our rapid RT-qPCR method for the assessment of pooled sample. We hereby propose a most reliable approach for the mass screening of samples with ease of operation at low cost. Finally we designed a single tube analysis method which provides qualitative as well as quantitative results in minimum time.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.11.21266209: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data were analyzed using instrument software, graph pad prism 5.0, Microsoft excel. Microsoft excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdenti…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.11.21266209: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data were analyzed using instrument software, graph pad prism 5.0, Microsoft excel. Microsoft excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
