ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2011
Validation of PCR for the detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from corneal samples.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine a species-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), a secondary DNA target for PA that may provide a universal target for other bacterial pathogens, and validate both assays for diagnostic testing.
methodsPCR detection was established against the ecfX PA gene and the 16S rRNA gene using known PA keratitis isolates. The outcome parameters for both assays were "limit of detection" (LOD), amplification efficiency (AE), and PAGE amplified product analysis. Both assays were validated against 20 true-positive clinical samples positive for PA DNA and 20 true-negative samples containing no PA DNA. Descriptive statistics and PAGE analysis were used as outcome parameters.
resultsAE of the ecfX assay was 96.6%, and LOD was 33.6 copies of target DNA per microliter. AE of the 16S rRNA assay was 103.4%, and LOD was 8.12 copies per microliter. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and efficiency for the ecfX and 16S rRNA assays were [75%, 95%, 94%, 79%, and 85%], and [70%, 100%, 100%, 77%, and 85%], respectively. Both PCR assays were validated, followed by confirmation of DNA patterns from PAGE analysis.
conclusionThe PCR methodology described here may be a useful adjunct to standard methods in the diagnosis of PA keratitis.
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.