Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Add filters

Year range
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-871974


Objective:To compare the consistency and detection capability of seven 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kits, and provide reference for detection method selection of clinical laboratory and diagnosis of new coronavirus pneumonia.Methods:Two batches of pharyngeal swab samples were collected from tenpatients with confirmed infection of 2019-nCoV and 10 suspected patients with negative 2019-nCoV test results during January 29 to February 5, 2020 in Shenzhen Luohu People′s Hospital. Seven kinds of kits were labeled as ato g and used for nucleic acid detection respectively to evaluate the consistency of the test results of the clinical samples. A 2019-nCoV positive specimen was selected and diluted to 5-concentration gradient plates (Level-1 to 5) with RNase-free water. The positive detection rate and intra-batch repeatability of different brands of kits were compared.Results:The negative and positive coincidence rates of twenty clinical samples tested by six kinds of kits were 100%, and the positive and negative coincidence rate was 8/10 and 10/10 for the other kit, respectively. The results of intra-batch repeatability showed the CVs of viral loads tested by these seven kits were all less than 5%. In the concentration range of Level-1 to 3, the detection capability for open reading frame (ORF)1ab gene of Kit b,d and f was lower than Kit a,c,e and g, and the detection capability of kit e and g was the highest (14/15). The detection capability for N gene of Kit a (15/15) was higher than the other 5 kits. The comprehensive analysis of the detection capability for ORF1ab and N gene showedthat Kit d had the lowest detection capability (ORF1ab:40%,N:53%), and there was no significant difference in the detection capability of Kit a, b, c, e, and f.Conclusions:There was no significant difference in the accuracy and repeatability of the seven kits for positive samples with high viral loads, and the detection performance was good; but some kits had poor detection capability for weak positive samples. It is suggested that the weak positive samples should be rechecked by at least two manufacturers′ kits to ensure the accuracy of the results.