ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Application of Alternative Nucleic Acid Extraction Protocols to ProGastro SSCS Assay for Detection of Bacterial Enteric Pathogens.
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 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.
- Answer to November 2017 Photo Quiz.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As an alternative to automated extraction, fecal specimens were processed by investigational lysis/heating (i.e., manual) and by chromatography/centrifugation (i.e., column) methods. ProGastro SSC and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (i.e., STEC) indeterminate rates for 101 specimens were 1.0% to 3.0% for automated, 11.9% for manual, and 24.8% to 37.6% for column methods. Following freeze-thaw of 247 specimens, indeterminate rates were 1.6% to 2.4% for manual and 0.8 to 5.3% for column methods. Mean processing times for manual and column methods were 30.5 and 69.2 min, respectively. Concordance of investigational methods with automated extraction was ≥98.8%.
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.