Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27296619›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2016

Evaluation of fliC-d based direct blood PCR assays for typhoid diagnosis.

Surojit Das, Ujjwayini Ray, Irfaan Akhter, Arka Chattopadhyay, Dilip Kumar Paul, Shanta Dutta

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Classification ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  5. Nucleic Acid-Based Lateral Flow Biosensor forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Clinical Evaluation of a Multiplex PCR for the Detection ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019
    Article
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

6 authors.

Surojit DasBacteriology Division, National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, P-33, CIT Road, Scheme XM, Beliaghata, P.O. Box 177, Kolkata, 700010, West Bengal, India.
Ujjwayini RayMicrobiology Division, Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Irfaan AkhterClinical Division, Dr. B. C. Roy Memorial Post Graduate Institute of Pediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Arka ChattopadhyayDepartment of Instrumentation and Electronics Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Dilip Kumar PaulClinical Division, Dr. B. C. Roy Memorial Post Graduate Institute of Pediatric Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Shanta DuttaBacteriology Division, National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, P-33, CIT Road, Scheme XM, Beliaghata, P.O. Box 177, Kolkata, 700010, West Bengal, India. shanta1232001@yahoo.co.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTyphoid cases need to be diagnosed accurately for early antibiotic therapy and reducing mortality. Identification of Salmonella Typhi (S. Typhi) in blood culture is conclusive, but has poor sensitivity. Detection of S. Typhi by PCR from blood sample has shown promise. Real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) has been widely used in diagnostics for its rapidity and reliability. In the present study, the performance of molecular methods like conventional PCR (C-PCR), nested PCR (N-PCR) and Q-PCR were investigated and compared by targeting S. Typhi specific flagellar fliC-d gene directly in blood samples for typhoid diagnosis.

resultsAnalytical sensitivities and specificities of the PCR assays were determined under laboratory condition followed by diagnostic performances were demonstrated in 110 clinically diagnosed typhoid fever (CDTF) cases included as study subjects. The DNA detection limit of C-PCR was observed 3 × 10(4) copies/reaction; those of N-PCR and Q-PCR (cutoff Ct value, ≤37) were 3 copies/reaction. The C-PCR was not further evaluated since it showed negative results with all clinical samples due to low sensitivity. Low isolation rate (21.8 %, 24/110) of S. Typhi by blood culture did not reflect the true burden of typhoid fever among the study subjects. Hence diagnostic performances of N-PCR and Q-PCR were determined considering CDTF cases positive by any of the diagnostic assay methods (n = 81) as true positives. Laboratory confirmed non-typhoidal cases (n = 29) were included as true negatives. On comparison, although both the assays were 100 % specific; sensitivity (91.4 % vs. 81.5 %) and efficiency (93.6 % vs. 86.4 %) of Q-PCR were better, but statistically not significant (p > 0.1) than N-PCR. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of Q-PCR were ∞ and 0.09 which indicated the potential clinical utility of Q-PCR for typhoid diagnosis. Q-PCR was more rapid than N-PCR (2 h vs. 6 h) in obtaining test results.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates for the first time that TaqMan-based Q-PCR assay performs more favorably than N-PCR for direct detection of S. Typhi DNA in blood samples. Direct and quantitative blood Q-PCR is a rapid and reliable method for diagnosis of typhoid fever.

Indexed as

BacteremiaBacterial Typing TechniquesBase SequenceChildChild, PreschoolDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersFemaleFlagellinGenes, BacterialHumansInfantMalePolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsSalmonella typhiDNA, BacterialDNA PrimersFlagellinDiagnosticsfliC-d genePCRTyphoid

Identifiers

PMID27296619
PMCPMC4906692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.