ArticleMolecular biology reports2012
Analytical variables influencing the HCV RNA determination by TaqMan real-time PCR in routine clinical laboratory practice.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2012. 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.
- Article
- A case of a patient infected with a hepatitis C virus genotype 3a multidrug resistant variant in Pakistan.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2018Article
- Blood Transcript Profiling for the Detection of Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results of a Large Independent Validation Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2018Article
- The clinical utility of a novel blood-based multi-transcriptome assay for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- A PCR blood test outperforms chromogranin A in carcinoid detection and is unaffected by proton pump inhibitors.Endocrine connections · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) quantification is used as a prognostic marker for treatment success. In a routine clinical laboratory some infinitesimal sample handling factors can contribute to variability and loss of precision in HCV quantification. This may include blood collection tubes, blood drawing procedure, sample processing and storage temperatures. In current study blood was collected in tubes with different anticoagulant type (spray vs. liquid), group 1, blood was drawn with possible suck of methylated spirit through needle (experimental group) while avoiding the methylated spirit suck (control group) group 2, plasma separation was delayed from 0 to 60 min for group 3, plasma storage at different temperatures group 4. All samples were analyzed using Corbett research real time PCR system using AJ Roboscreen Kit. Mean viral load difference between spray vs. liquid was found 3.6 × 10(5) IU/ml (p < 0.001). Methylated spirit inhibited the viral load quantification with a value of 4.8 × 10(5) IU/ml (p < 0.001). Mean viral load difference was found 1.2 × 10(5) IU/ml (p < 0.05). Delay in centrifugation from 0 to 60 min and plasma placement at 25 °C for 15 min before freezing had no effect (p = 0.5996). Plasma storage temperature at -80 and -20 °C did not affect significantly on RNA levels (p > 0.05). In conclusion blood collection tubes and procedures can be a key factor in variability of results, that might affect the treatment response decision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22327777What 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.