Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12958235›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003

Evaluation of real-time PCR for detection of and discrimination between Bordetella pertussis, Bordetella parapertussis, and Bordetella holmesii for clinical diagnosis.

Kate E Templeton, Sitha A Scheltinga, Anneke van der Zee, Bram M W Diederen, Alida M van Kruijssen, Herman Goossens, Ed Kuijper, Eric C J Claas

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. DecipheringJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Alarm Thresholds for Pertussis Outbreaks in Iran: National Data Analysis.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparing the Yield of Nasopharyngeal Swabs, Nasal Aspirates, and Induced Sputum for Detection of Bordetella pertussis in Hospitalized Infants.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
    Article
  17. Laboratory Diagnosis of Pertussis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kate E TempletonDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Center of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sitha A Scheltinga
Anneke van der Zee
Bram M W Diederen
Alida M van Kruijssen
Herman Goossens
Ed Kuijper
Eric C J Claas
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PCR is increasingly being used as a diagnostic test for the detection of Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis DNA, as it has improved sensitivity and specificity in comparison to conventional techniques. The assay described here uses the two insertion sequences IS481 and IS1001 for B. pertussis and B. parapertussis, respectively, with detection by molecular beacons. The real-time PCR for IS481 detects both B. pertussis and Bordetella holmesii, and the real-time PCR for IS1001 detects both B. parapertussis and B. holmesii. By performing both assays discrimination between B. pertussis and B. parapertussis can be obtained. The sensitivity was 1 to 10 CFU/ml for B. pertussis, 10 CFU/ml for B. parapertussis, and 10 CFU/ml for B. holmesii in both assays. The clinical sensitivity of the B. pertussis assay was not affected by duplexing with an internal control PCR. Real-time PCR, conventional PCR, and culture were performed on 57 clinical samples. Eight of the 57 (14%) were found positive by culture, 19 of 57 (33%) were found positive by conventional PCR, and 22 of 57 (39%) were found positive by real-time PCR. One sample was inhibitory. When the B. pertussis assay was compared with a clinical standard for B. pertussis infection, sensitivity was 38, 83, and 100% and specificity was 100, 97, and 97% for culture, conventional PCR, and real-time PCR, respectively. The real-time PCR designed for B. pertussis and B. parapertussis provides sensitive and specific diagnosis of B. pertussis and B. parapertussis infections and is therefore suitable for implementation in the diagnostic laboratory.

Indexed as

BordetellaBordetella InfectionsBordetella pertussisHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID12958235
PMCPMC193783
OpenAlexW1980741999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.