ArticleIranian journal of pathology2016
Comparing Rapid and Specific Detection of Brucella in Clinical Samples by PCR-ELISA and Multiplex-PCR Method.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of brucellosis in sheep and goats in the Arabian Gulf region.Veterinary world · 2020Article
- Optimization and validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction protocol for the diagnosis of human brucellosis.Folia microbiologica · 2020Article
- Differentiation ofNew microbes and new infections · 2019Article
- Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Assays for the Diagnosis of Active and Relapsed Cases of Human Brucellosis.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnosis and differentiation of Brucella is of high importance due to the side effects of antibiotics for the treatment of brucellosis. This study aimed to identify and compare PCR-ELISA as a more accurate diagnositc test with other common molecular and serological tests.
methodsIn this experimental and sectional study, during March 2014 to Sep 2015, 52 blood samples of suspected patients with clinical symptoms of brucellosis were evaluated in medical centers all over Iran with serum titers higher than 1:80. Using two pairs of specific primers of Brucella abortus, B. melitensis and DIG-dUTP, Fragment IS711 (The common gene fragment in B. melitensis and B. abortus) was amplified. DIG-ELISA was performed using specific probes of these 2 species of Brucella and patterns were subsequently analyzed, then positive responses were compared by detecting gel electrophoresis.
resultsPCR-ELISA method detected all 28 samples from 52 positive samples. Its sensitivity was 6.0 pg concentration of genomic DNA of Brucella. In gel electrophoresis method, 22 samples of all positive samples were detected. PCR-ELISA was more efficient than PCR and bacterial culture method at P-value <0.05.
conclusionPCR-ELISA molecular method is more sensitive than other molecular methods, lack of mutagenic color and also a semi-quantitative ability. This method is more effective and more accurate compared to PCR, serology and culture of bacteria. PCR-ELISA does not have false responses. The limitation of this method is detection of bacteria in the genus compared to Multiplex PCR and Gel Electrophoresis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27499776PMC4939645W2342231977What 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.