ArticleYonsei medical journal2008
Comparison of in-house PCR with conventional techniques and Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis kit for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on the value of molecular biology combined with liquid MGIT culture method in clinical examination of mycobacterium tuberculosis.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Development of one-tube multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detecting Mycobacterium bovis.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2017Article
- Direct molecular detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex from clinical samples - An adjunct to cultural method of laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis.North American journal of medical sciences · 2011Article
- Analysis of sequence diversity among IS6110 sequence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: possible implications for PCR based detection.Bioinformation · 2011Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePolymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, introduced as a fast and sensitive diagnostic method, is useful in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of in-house PCR assay in the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by comparing PCR results with conventional diagnostic techniques and Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis kit. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively assessed the diagnostic yield of in-house PCR method employed for the amplification IS6110 sequences in 2,973 specimens. We also compared in-house PCR with Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis kit in 120 specimens collected from June to July 2006. Routine acid-fast stain (AFS) and culture assay were also performed and analyzed.
resultsOf 2,973 cases, 2,832 cases (95.3%) showed consistent results between in house PCR, AFS and culture methods, whereas 141 (4.7%) displayed inconsistent results. The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of each method were as follows: 77.5%, 99.7%, 95.5%, and 98.0%, respectively for PCR; 49.2%, 100%, 100%, and 95.7%, respectively, for AFS method; and 80.7%, 100%, 100%, and 98.3%, respectively, for culture assay. Consistent results between PCR and Cobas Amplicor M. tuberculosis kit were shown in 109 cases (90.8%). The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of each method were as follows: 81.3%, 98.9%, 96.3%, and 93.5% respectively for PCR and 71.9%, 100%, 100%, and 90.7%, respectively, for Cobas Amplicor kit.
conclusionIn-house PCR and Cobas Amplicor kit show high sensitivity and specificity, and are reliable tests in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
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.