Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16825370›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006

Progression toward an improved DNA amplification-based typing technique in the study of Mycobacterium tuberculosis epidemiology.

Krishna K Gopaul, Timothy J Brown, Andrea L Gibson, Malcolm D Yates, Francis A Drobniewski

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

5 authors.

Krishna K GopaulHealth Protection Agency Mycobacterium Reference Unit, Clinical Research Centre, Barts and the London Medical School, Queen Mary College, University of London, 2 Newark St., London E1 2AT, United Kingdom.
Timothy J Brown
Andrea L Gibson
Malcolm D Yates
Francis A Drobniewski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While high-copy-number IS6110-based restriction fragment length polymorphism (HCN-RFLP) is the gold standard for typing most Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains, the time taken for culturing and low throughput make it impractical for large-scale prospective typing of large numbers of isolates. The development of a new method, mycobacterial interspersed repetitive units (MIRU), a variation of the original variable-number tandem repeat (VNTR) technique, may provide a viable alternative. Panels based on the original 12-loci MIRU (12MIRU), a combination of 12MIRU and remaining ETR loci (15MIRU-VNTR), and an extended panel with an additional 10 novel regions (25VNTR) were used to study three populations with varying degrees of epidemiological data. MIRU discrimination increased with panel size and the addition of spoligotyping. Combining these two techniques enabled a reduction in the panel size from 25 to 14 loci without a significant loss in discrimination. However, 25VNTR alone or in combination with spoligotyping still possessed weaker discrimination than RFLP for high-copy-number isolates.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialHumansInterspersed Repetitive SequencesMolecular EpidemiologyMycobacterium tuberculosisTuberculosisDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID16825370
PMCPMC1489471

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.