Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
| [unmarkierte Version] | [unmarkierte Version] |
Thomas (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Thomas (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 39: | Zeile 39: | ||
== Kritik == | == Kritik == | ||
| + | |||
=== [https://cormandrostenreview.com Corman-Drosten Review Report] === | === [https://cormandrostenreview.com Corman-Drosten Review Report] === | ||
| + | '''Virus Fragmente''': | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
'''Cycle Threshold''': | '''Cycle Threshold''': | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Version vom 10. Januar 2021, 02:27 Uhr
Publikation bei Eurosurveillance
- Submitted: 21.1.2020
- Accepted: 22.1.2020
- Published: 23.1.2020
Bei der WHO gibt es eine früherere Version des Aufsatzes mit dem Datum 17.1.2020 und dem Hinweis, daß es sich um ein Update der Version 1 vom 13.1.2020 handelt.
Autoren
- Victor Corman
- Olfert Landt
- Marco Kaiser
- Richard Molenkamp
- Adam Meijer
- Daniel KW Chu
- Tobias Bleicker
- Sebastian Brünink
- Julia Schneider
- Marie Luisa Schmidt
- Daphne GJC Mulders
- Bart L Haagmans
- Bas van der Veer
- Sharon van den Brink
- Lisa Wijsman
- Gabriel Goderski
- Jean-Louis Romette
- Joanna Ellis
- Maria Zambon
- Malik Peiris
- Herman Goossens
- Chantal Reusken
- Marion PG Koopmans
- Christian Drosten
Kritik
Corman-Drosten Review Report
Virus Fragmente:
The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
Cycle Threshold:
an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.
