Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Evaluation of an automated CRISPR-based diagnostic tool for rapid detection of COVID-19.
Xu, Jun; Ma, Yuanyuan; Song, Zhigang; Sun, Wei; Liu, Yi; Shu, Chang; Hua, Hua; Yang, Ming; Liang, Qi.
  • Xu J; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
  • Ma Y; Department of Drug Clinical Trial, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 201508, China.
  • Song Z; Pathogen Detection and Biosafety Department, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 201508, China.
  • Sun W; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
  • Liu Y; Pathogen Detection and Biosafety Department, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 201508, China.
  • Shu C; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
  • Hua H; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
  • Yang M; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
  • Liang Q; Department for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Heilongjiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Harbin 150030, China.
Heliyon ; 9(2): e13190, 2023 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2287258
ABSTRACT
The performance of an automated commercial CRISPR/Cas based technology was evaluated and compared with routine RT-PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19. Suspected and discharged COVID-19 cases were included and tested with CRISPR-based SARS-CoV-2 test and RT-PCR assay using throat swab and sputum specimens. The diagnostic yield was calculated and compared using the McNemar test. A total of 437 patients were included for analysis, including COVID-19 (n = 171), discharged cases (n = 155), and others (n = 111). For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 test had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.2% (168/171) and 100.0% (266/266), respectively; the RT-PCR test had a sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% (171/171) and 100.0% (266/266), respectively. No significant difference was found in the sensitivity of CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR. In conclusion, the CRISPR-SARS-CoV-2 test had a comparable performance with RT-PCR and showed several advantages, such as short assay time, low cost, and no requirement for expensive equipment.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies Language: English Journal: Heliyon Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.heliyon.2023.e13190

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies Language: English Journal: Heliyon Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.heliyon.2023.e13190