ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2011
Comparison of QIAsymphony automated and QIAamp manual DNA extraction systems for measuring Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in whole blood using real-time PCR.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Performance Evaluation of T-prep24: A Novel Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction System Based on Silica Magnetic Beads.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Inter-laboratory assessment of different digital PCR platforms for quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for Detecting Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr Virus Using Real-Time PCR: A Comparison Study Between the QIAsymphony RGQ and QIAcube Systems.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- Comparative evaluation of the QIAsymphony RGQ system with the easyMAG/R-gene combination for the quantitation of cytomegalovirus DNA load in whole blood.Virology journal · 2012Article
- Comparison of commercial extraction systems and PCR assays for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in whole blood.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated and manual extraction systems have been used with real-time PCR for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus [human herpesvirus 4 (HHV-4)] DNA in whole blood, but few studies have evaluated relative performances. In the present study, the automated QIAsymphony and manual QIAamp extraction systems (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) were assessed using paired aliquots derived from clinical whole-blood specimens and an in-house, real-time PCR assay. The detection limits using the QIAsymphony and QIAamp systems were similar (270 and 560 copies/mL, respectively). For samples estimated as having ≥10,000 copies/mL, the intrarun and interrun variations were significantly lower using QIAsymphony (10.0% and 6.8%, respectively), compared with QIAamp (18.6% and 15.2%, respectively); for samples having ≤1000 copies/mL, the two variations ranged from 27.9% to 43.9% and were not significantly different between the two systems. Among 68 paired clinical samples, 48 pairs yielded viral loads ≥1000 copies/mL under both extraction systems. Although the logarithmic linear correlation from these positive samples was high (r(2) = 0.957), the values obtained using QIAsymphony were on average 0.2 log copies/mL higher than those obtained using QIAamp. Thus, the QIAsymphony and QIAamp systems provide similar EBV DNA load values in whole blood.
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.