ArticlePeerJ2014
Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues.
Article in PeerJ, 2014. 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
- Universal pre-mixing dry-film stickers capable of retrofitting existing microfluidics.Biomicrofluidics · 2023Article
- Increasing Cytomegalovirus Detection Rate from Respiratory Tract Specimens by a New Laboratory-Developed Automated Molecular Diagnostic Test.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Cytomegalovirus and ulcerative colitis: Place of antiviral therapy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Molecular and Culture-Based Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Testing for the Diagnosis of Cytomegalovirus Pneumonitis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing for cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is increasingly being used for specimen types other than plasma or whole blood. However, few studies have investigated the performance of different nucleic acid extraction protocols in such specimens. In this study, CMV extraction using the Cell-free 1000 and Pathogen Complex 400 protocols on the QIAsymphony Sample Processing (SP) system were compared using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL), tissue samples, and urine. The QIAsymphonyAssay Set-up (AS) system was used to assemble reactions using artus CMV PCR reagents and amplification was carried out on the Rotor-Gene Q. Samples from 93 patients previously tested for CMV DNA and negative samples spiked with CMV AD-169 were used to evaluate assay performance. The Pathogen Complex 400 protocol yielded the following results: BAL, sensitivity 100% (33/33), specificity 87% (20/23); tissue, sensitivity 100% (25/25), specificity 100% (20/20); urine, sensitivity 100% (21/21), specificity 100% (20/20). Cell-free 1000 extraction gave comparable results for BAL and tissue, however, for urine, the sensitivity was 86% (18/21) and specimen quantitation was inaccurate. Comparative studies of different extraction protocols and DNA detection methods in body fluids and tissues are needed, as assays optimized for blood or plasma will not necessarily perform well on other specimen types.
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.