ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2013
A new multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for the identification a panel of bacteria involved in bacteremia.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2013. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the PCR and Blood Agar in Diagnosis of Semen Bacterial Contamination of Fertile and Infertile Men.Reports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2021Article
- Microbiological comparison of blood culture and amplification of 16S rDNA methods in combination with DGGE for detection of neonatal sepsis in blood samples.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
- Conventional, molecular methods and biomarkers molecules in detection of septicemia.Advanced biomedical research · 2015Review
- Development of Multiplex PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Three Pathogenic Shigella Species.Iranian journal of public health · 2014Article
- A multiplex nested PCR for the simultaneous detection of Salmonella typhi, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Burkholderia pseudomallei in patients with pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO) in Vellore, South India.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThroughout the world, bloodstream infections (BSIs) are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Rapid pathogens identification is central significance for the outcome of the patient than culture techniques for microbial identification. To develop an end point multiplex PCR to identify a group of bacteria including Enterococcus spp., Pseudomons aeruginosa, Staphylococcus spp., Acinetobacter baumannii, 16S rDNA, and Drosophila Melanogaster were used as internal control (IC). MATERIALS AND
methodsDesign of primers was done using Mega4, Allel ID6, Oligo6 and Oligo analyzer softwares. Genetic targets for primer designing and identification of genus Enterococcus spp., Staphylococcus spp., and species of Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomons aeruginosa, included the rpoB, rpoB and gyrA, sss respectively. Then PCR and multiplex PCR were performed.
resultsThe intended specificity was obtained for the bacteria, which used in this study and there wasn't seen any unspecific amplification by the multiplex PCR. The test showed a sensitivity ranging from 1 to 100 target copies per reaction depending on the bacterial species.
conclusionsThe presented multiplex PCR offers a rapid and accurate molecular diagnostic tool for simultaneous detection of some pathogenic microorganisms. The IC exists in the multiplex PCR accompanied by other primers in the system, can serve as a simple, cost- effective internal control for the multiplex 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.