ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2008
Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods with manual extraction.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Research on a Magnetic Separation-Based Rapid Nucleic Acid Extraction System and Its Detection Applications.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- Integrated, Automated, Fast PCR System for Point-Of-Care Molecular Diagnosis of Bacterial Infection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Viruses in wastewater: occurrence, abundance and detection methods.The Science of the total environment · 2020Review
- Comparison of Extraction Methods and Thermocyclers for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Using Clinical Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Toscana, West Nile, Usutu and tick-borne encephalitis viruses: external quality assessment for molecular detection of emerging neurotropic viruses in Europe, 2017.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2019Article
- Does Size Matter? Comparison of Extraction Yields for Different-Sized DNA Fragments by Seven Different Routine and Four New Circulating Cell-Free Extraction Methods.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Moving toward rapid and low-cost point-of-care molecular diagnostics with a repurposed 3D printer and RPA.Analytical biochemistry · 2018Article
- Detection of 16S rRNA and KPC Genes from Complex Matrix Utilizing a Molecular Inversion Probe Assay for Next-Generation Sequencing.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Incidence of Severe and Nonsevere Pertussis Among HIV-Exposed and -Unexposed Zambian Infants Through 14 Weeks of Age: Results From the Southern Africa Mother Infant Pertussis Study (SAMIPS), a Longitudinal Birth Cohort Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016Article
- A Biospecimen Proficiency Testing Program for Biobank Accreditation: Four Years of Experience.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2016Article
- Environmental Enteric Dysfunction Includes a Broad Spectrum of Inflammatory Responses and Epithelial Repair Processes.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2016Article
- Low-Cost 3D Printers Enable High-Quality and Automated Sample Preparation and Molecular Detection.PloS one · 2016Article
- Utility of different massive parallel sequencing platforms for mutation profiling in clinical samples and identification of pitfalls using FFPE tissue.International journal of molecular medicine · 2015Article
- Laboratory Diagnosis of Pertussis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015Review
- Comparison of an automated nucleic acid extraction system with the column-based procedure.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Article
- 16S rRNA gene sequencing is a non-culture method of defining the specific bacterial etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Comparative assessment of automated nucleic acid sample extraction equipment for biothreat agents.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated nucleic acid extractors can improve workflow and decrease variability in the clinical laboratory. We evaluated Qiagen EZ1 (Valencia, CA) and bioMérieux (Durham, NC) easyMAG extractors compared with Qiagen manual extraction using targets and matrices commonly available in the clinical laboratory. Pooled samples were spiked with various organisms, serially diluted, and extracted in duplicate. The organisms/matrices were Bordetella pertussis/bronchoalveolar lavage, herpes simplex virus II/cerebrospinal fluid, coxsackievirus A9/cerebrospinal fluid, BK virus/plasma, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae/endotracheal tube samples. Extracts were amplified in duplicate using real-time PCR assays, and amplification of the target at a cycle threshold of 35 using the manual method was used for comparison. Amplification efficiency of nucleic acids extracted by automated methods was similar to that by the manual method except for a loss of efficiency for M. pneumoniae in endotracheal tube samples. The EZ1 viral kit 2.0 gave better results for coxsackievirus A9 than the EZ1 viral kit version 1.0. At the lowest limit of detection (past a cycle threshold of 35), the easyMAG was more likely to produce amplifiable nucleic acid than were either the EZ1 or manual extraction. Operational complexity, defined as the number of manipulations required to obtain an extracted sample, was the lowest for the easyMAG. The easyMAG was the most expensive of the methods, followed by the EZ1 kit and manual extraction.
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.