ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Evaluation of a New Device for Simplifying and Standardizing Stool Sample Preparation for Viral Molecular Testing with Limited Hands-On Time.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of DNA extraction methods for 16S rRNA gene sequencing in the analysis of the human gut microbiome.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Correlations Between Olfactory Psychophysical Scores and SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in COVID-19 Patients.The Laryngoscope · 2021Article
- Performance of Self-Collected Saliva Testing Compared with Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Viruses · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a review of molecular diagnostic tools including sample collection and commercial response with associated advantages and limitations.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Review
- Clinical and virological data of the first cases of COVID-19 in Europe: a case series.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensitive molecular assays have greatly improved the diagnosis of viral gastroenteritis. However, the proper preparation of stool samples for clinical testing remains an issue. bioMérieux has developed a stool preprocessing device (SPD) that includes a spoon for calibrated sampling and a vial containing buffer, glass beads, and two filters. The resulting stool filtrate is used for nucleic acid extraction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the SPD for the quantification of human adenovirus (HAdV) DNA in stool samples collected from hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. HAdV DNA was quantified with the Adenovirus R-gene kit. The suitability of the device to reproducibly quantify HAdV DNA in stools using different extraction platforms (easyMAG and QIAsymphony) was determined using archived HAdV-positive stool samples. Coefficients of variation of HAdV DNA quantifications ranged from 1.79% to 1.83%, and no difference in quantification was observed between the two extraction systems. The HAdV DNA limit of quantification using the SPD was 3.75 log10copies/g of stool. HAdV DNA quantification using the SPD was then compared to that of the routine preprocessing technique on 75 fresh stool samples collected prospectively from pediatric HSCT recipients at risk for HAdV infections. Thirty-eight samples were HAdV DNA positive with both the SPD and routine preprocessing methods. HAdV DNA loads were on average 1.14-log10copies/g of stool higher with the SPD (P< 0.0001) than with routine methods. This new device enabled a standardized preparation of stool samples in <5 min and a reproducible and sensitive quantification of HAdV DNA. The use of the SPD for the detection of other gastrointestinal infections warrants further evaluation.
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.