ArticleBMC microbiology2007
Comparison of commercial and in-house Real-time PCR assays for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA in plasma.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- M1 enrichment facilitates virus detection in patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stemcell transplantation.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Managing Viral Emerging Infectious Diseases via Current and Future Molecular Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Molecular diagnosis and management of viral infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2012Review
- Comparison of commercial extraction systems and PCR assays for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in whole blood.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Application of molecular diagnostic techniques for viral testing.The open virology journal · 2012Article
- Measurement of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load using a novel quantification standard containing two EBV DNA targets and SYBR Green I dye.Virology journal · 2010Article
- Using Epstein-Barr viral load assays to diagnose, monitor, and prevent posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2010Review
- Laboratory assays for Epstein-Barr virus-related disease.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA load monitoring is known to be useful for the diagnosis and monitoring of EBV-associated diseases. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two real-time PCR assays for EBV DNA: a commercial kit as the Q-EBV Real-Time System (Q-EBV PCR, Amplimedical, Turin, Italy) and an in-house assay (EBV RQ-PCR).
resultsThe range of linearity and the degree of precision of the two assays were similar. The clinical sensitivity of Q-EBV PCR was higher for reference samples containing less than 1,000 EBV DNA copies/ml. The absolute quantitative results of the two methods were statistically correlated (R2 = 0.7789; p < 0.0001), with the systematic overestimation by EBV RQ-PCR possibly linked to different amplification efficiency in calibration standards.
conclusionBoth the commercial and the in-house assay may be appropriate for clinical use, but common standards are advisable for comparable absolute values, as these would improve the clinical utility of EBV DNA load measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.