ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2009
Detection of cytomegalovirus in whole blood using three different real-time PCR chemistries.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2009. 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.
- Establishment and application of a point-of-care testing and diagnosis method for early immediate expression gene IE1 of cytomegalovirus in maternal urine based on isothermal amplification.Virus research · 2023Article
- Microelectromechanical system-based biosensor for label-free detection of human cytomegalovirus.IET nanobiotechnology · 2023Article
- Comparative evaluation of three automated systems for DNA extraction in conjunction with three commercially available real-time PCR assays for quantitation of plasma Cytomegalovirus DNAemia in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Rapid quantitation of cytomegalovirus DNA in whole blood by a new molecular assay based on automated sample preparation and real-time PCR.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several different primer-probe chemistries have been produced commercially for real-time PCR detection and quantification of cytomegalovirus, but there are few studies evaluating their relative performance. We assessed three such commercial reagents with respect to analytical and clinical operating characteristics. The samples included 149 clinical whole blood specimens that were de-identified and assayed in parallel with all primer-probe systems. Individual methods used TaqMan, dual fluorescence resonance energy transfer hybridization probes, and labeled primer chemistries. Method comparability was determined both qualitatively, based on pair-wise assessment of concordance, and quantitatively, based on pair-wise linear regression analysis. Analytical sensitivity and the lower end of the linear dynamic range reached 10 target copies per reaction for the TaqMan and labeled primer systems and 100 target copies per reaction for the dual fluorescence resonance energy transfer probe system. Quantitative linearity reached an upper limit of 10(5) copies per reaction for all methods. No assay cross-reactivity was seen with other common viral pathogens (100% analytical specificity). Pair-wise analysis of qualitative results from clinical samples showed no significant differences in sensitivity between the three sets of reagents, and linear regression analysis indicated that the quantitative values achieved were comparable in all positive specimens. The findings demonstrate that similar analytical and clinical performance characteristics can be demonstrated for quantitative detection of cytomegalovirus in clinical whole blood extracts using a wide variety of real-time PCR chemistries.
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.