ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2013
Evaluation of real-time quantitative PCR as a standard cytogenetic diagnostic tool for confirmation of microarray (aCGH) results and determination of inheritance.
Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetically Localized Detection of Amplified DNA Using Biotinylated and Fluorescent Primers and Magnetic Nanoparticles.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Article
- Atrazine exposure elicits copy number alterations in the zebrafish genome.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the use of real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) as a diagnostic tool for follow up of abnormal microarray (aCGH) results.
methodqPCR was performed on 207 samples with known aCGH results to detect chromosomal abnormality and determine the capability of qPCR. Eighty-four samples were processed and the results compared with the original aCGH result and with one or more of the alternative follow-up methods: aCGH, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or karyotyping. A separate cohort of 107 samples was used to determine critical threshold values for qPCR. A further 16 samples were assessed in reproducibility and sensitivity studies.
resultsAll qPCR findings were consistent with the original aCGH results, and qPCR was found to be a superior follow-up method compared to FISH and karyotyping. Critical threshold values were also determined from this study.
conclusionIn this study, qPCR analysis identified all copy number changes. qPCR is an accurate, rapid, reliable, and inexpensive technique for confirming copy number changes, and for determining the inheritance of such abnormalities to aid interpretation of results. We also present the critical threshold values required for qPCR as a practical tool. This technique has now been successfully implemented as part of the clinical diagnostic service within our laboratory.
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.