ArticleJournal of medical virology2012
Prospective evaluation of a new automated nucleic acid extraction system using routine clinical respiratory specimens.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Three Automated Extraction Systems for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Clinical Respiratory Specimens.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Assay System for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of an efficient Sanger sequencing-based assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations.PloS one · 2021Article
- Antibiotic misuse in respiratory tract infections in children and adults-a prospective, multicentre study (TAILORED Treatment).European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of three automated nucleic acid extraction systems for identification of respiratory viruses in clinical specimens by multiplex real-time PCR.BioMed research international · 2014Article
- Automated, simple, and efficient influenza RNA extraction from clinical respiratory swabs using TruTip and epMotion.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2013Article
- Performance of the MagNA Pure 96 system for cytomegalovirus nucleic acid amplification testing in clinical samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
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
The aim of the study was to evaluate the MagNA Pure 96™ nucleic acid extraction system using clinical respiratory specimens for identifying viruses by qualitative real-time PCR assays. Three extraction methods were tested, that is, the MagNA Pure LC™, the COBAS Ampliprep™, and the MagNA Pure 96™ with 10-fold dilutions of an influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 sample. Two hundred thirty-nine respiratory specimens, 35 throat swabs, 164 nasopharyngeal specimens, and 40 broncho-alveolar fluids, were extracted with the MagNA Pure 96™ and the COBAS Ampliprep™ instruments. Forty COBAS Ampliprep™ positive samples were also tested. Real-time PCRs were used to identify influenza A and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, rhinovirus, enterovirus, adenovirus, varicella zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus. Similar results were obtained on RNA extracted from dilutions of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 with the three systems: the MagNA Pure LC™, the COBAS Ampliprep™, and the MagNA Pure 96™. Data from clinical respiratory specimens extracted with the MagNA Pure 96™ and COBAS Ampliprep™ instruments were in 98.5% in agreement (P < 0.0001) for influenza A and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Data for rhinovirus were in 97.3% agreement (P < 0.0001) and in 96.8% agreement for enterovirus. They were in 100% agreement for adenovirus. Data for cytomegalovirus and HSV1-2 were in 95.2% agreement (P < 0.0001). The MagNA Pure 96™ instrument is easy-to-use, reliable, and has a high throughput for extracting total nucleic acid from respiratory specimens. These extracts are suitable for molecular diagnosis with any type of real-time PCR assay.
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.