ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2017
Comparison of multiplex PCR hybridization-based and singleplex real-time PCR-based assays for detection of low prevalence pathogens in spiked samples.
Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and comparison of two rapid multiplex PCR tests for gastroenteritis pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Pooled it
- Optimization and Evaluation of a Multiplex Quantitative PCR Assay for Detection of Nucleic Acids in Human Blood Samples from Patients with Spotted Fever Rickettsiosis, Typhus Rickettsiosis, Scrub Typhus, Monocytic Ehrlichiosis, and Granulocytic Anaplasmosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Persistence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- The use of laser-based diagnostics for the rapid identification of infectious agents in human blood.Journal of applied microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular diagnostic devices are increasingly finding utility in clinical laboratories. Demonstration of the effectiveness of these devices is dependent upon comparing results from clinical samples tested with the new device to an alternative testing method. The preparation of mock clinical specimens will be necessary for the validation of molecular diagnostic devices when a sufficient number of clinical specimens is unobtainable. Examples include rare pathogens, some of which are pathogens posing a biological weapon threat. Here we describe standardized steps for developers to follow for the culture and quantification of three organisms used to spike human whole blood to create mock specimens. The three organisms chosen for this study were the Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) of Francisella tularensis, surrogate for a potential biothreat pathogen, Escherichia coli, a representative Gram-negative bacterium and Babesia microti (Franca) Reichenow Peabody strain, representing a protozoan parasite. Mock specimens were prepared with blood from both healthy donors and donors with nonspecific symptoms including fever, malaise, and flu-like symptoms. There was no significant difference in detection results between the two groups for any pathogen. Testing of the mock samples was compared on two platforms, Target Enriched Multiplex-PCR (TEM-PCR™) and singleplex real-time PCR (RT-PCR). Results were reproducible on both platforms. The reproducibility demonstrated by obtaining the same results between two testing methods and between healthy and symptomatic mock specimens, indicates the standardized methods described for creating the mock specimens are valid and effective for evaluating diagnostic devices.
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.