Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15015033›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2004

False-positive results and contamination in nucleic acid amplification assays: suggestions for a prevent and destroy strategy.

A Borst, A T A Box, A C Fluit

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Surface contamination with SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review.The Science of the total environment · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Risk of window period hepatitis-C infection in high infectious risk donors: systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2011
    Pooled it
  3. Risk of window period HIV infection in high infectious risk donors: systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The role of gastrointestinal PCR in inflammatory bowel disease flares: A double-edged sword or a diagnostic breakthrough?Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026
    Review
  11. Comprehensive virome analysis ofFrontiers in insect science · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Is Osteoarthritis a State of Joint Dysbiosis?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A BorstEijkman-Winkler Center for Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Inflammation, University Medical Center, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A T A Box
A C Fluit

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contamination of samples with DNA is still a major problem in microbiology laboratories, despite the wide acceptance of PCR and other amplification techniques for the detection of frequently low amounts of target DNA. This review focuses on the implications of contamination in the diagnosis and research of infectious diseases, possible sources of contaminants, strategies for prevention and destruction, and quality control. Contamination of samples in diagnostic PCR can have far-reaching consequences for patients, as illustrated by several examples in this review. Furthermore, it appears that the (sometimes very unexpected) sources of contaminants are diverse (including water, reagents, disposables, sample carry over, and amplicon), and contaminants can also be introduced by unrelated activities in neighboring laboratories. Therefore, lack of communication between researchers using the same laboratory space can be considered a risk factor. Only a very limited number of multicenter quality control studies have been published so far, but these showed false-positive rates of 9-57%. The overall conclusion is that although nucleic acid amplification assays are basically useful both in research and in the clinic, their accuracy depends on awareness of risk factors and the proper use of procedures for the prevention of nucleic acid contamination. The discussion of prevention and destruction strategies included in this review may serve as a guide to help improve laboratory practices and reduce the number of false-positive amplification results.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesFalse Positive ReactionsHumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionPrimary PreventionQuality ControlRisk AssessmentSuggestion

Identifiers

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.