Comparative Analysis of Four Commercial RT-PCR Diagnostic Assay for Detection of Covid-19
preprint
OA: closed
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is currently the only available yet effective testing system to fight COVID-19 epidemics as far as there’s not any treatment and vaccine. Moreover, many SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR kits are approved by the emergency-use-authorization (EUA) altogether over the world. In this article we’ve provided a comparison of important performance features of four commercial RT-PCR assays. A total of consecutive nasopharyngeal (NPS) samples and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs were collected from 50 COVID-19 patients for sensitivity and specificity analysis. Specificity of these assays were examined by using extractions of RNA from common human coronavirus cultures. All RT-PCR kits including in this study exhibited acceptable specificity over 90%, except for the Sansure and PowerCheck (88%). Pishtaz teb assays demonstrated a PPA of 95.24% (40/42), while the DaAn Gene, Sansure, Power check of SARS-CoV-2 panel showed the PPA of 85.7% (36/42), 66.66% (28/42), and 64.3% (27/42), respectively. An NPA of 100% (8/8) was observed for four molecular assays. This study gives a technical baseline of four distinct commercial PCR assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2, that can be practical and useful for laboratories interested in buying any of them for more clinical validation.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-20T11:00:21.680559+00:00