Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27160000›Full record

ReviewClinical chemistry2016

Recombinase Polymerase Amplification for Diagnostic Applications.

Rana K Daher, Gale Stewart, Maurice Boissinot, Michel G Bergeron

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 327 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
327citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

327 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

267 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rana K DaherCentre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval (CRI), Axe maladies infectieuses et immunitaires, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada; Département de microbiologie-infectiologie et d'immunologie, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada.
Gale StewartCentre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval (CRI), Axe maladies infectieuses et immunitaires, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada;
Maurice BoissinotCentre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval (CRI), Axe maladies infectieuses et immunitaires, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada;
Michel G BergeronCentre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval (CRI), Axe maladies infectieuses et immunitaires, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada; Département de microbiologie-infectiologie et d'immunologie, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Québec City (Québec), Canada. michel.g.bergeron@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFirst introduced in 2006, recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) has stirred great interest, as evidenced by 75 publications as of October 2015, with 56 of them just in the last 2 years. The widespread adoption of this isothermal molecular tool in many diagnostic fields represents an affordable (approximately 4.3 USD per test), simple (few and easy hands-on steps), fast (results within 5-20 min), and sensitive (single target copy number detected) method for the identification of pathogens and the detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms in human cancers and genetically modified organisms. CONTENT: This review summarizes the current knowledge on RPA. The molecular diagnostics of various RNA/DNA pathogens is discussed while highlighting recent applications in clinical settings with focus on point-of-care (POC) bioassays and on automated fluidic platforms. The strengths and limitations of this isothermal method are also addressed. SUMMARY: RPA is becoming a molecular tool of choice for the rapid, specific, and cost-effective identification of pathogens. Owing to minimal sample-preparation requirements, low operation temperature (25-42 °C), and commercial availability of freeze-dried reagents, this method has been applied outside laboratory settings, in remote areas, and interestingly, onboard automated sample-to-answer microfluidic devices. RPA is undoubtedly a promising isothermal molecular technique for clinical microbiology laboratories and emergence response in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques and ProceduresDNAHumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPoint-of-Care SystemsRNADNARNA

Identifiers

PMID27160000
PMCPMC7108464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.