Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27838540›Full record

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.

Donna Hockman, Ming Dong, Hong Zheng, Sanjai Kumar, Matthew D Huff, Elena Grigorenko, Maureen Beanan, Robert Duncan

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Persistence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Donna HockmanDiatherix Laboratories, LLC, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Ming DongLaboratory of Emerging Pathogens, Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Hong ZhengLaboratory of Emerging Pathogens, Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Sanjai KumarLaboratory of Emerging Pathogens, Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Matthew D HuffDiatherix Laboratories, LLC, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Elena GrigorenkoDiatherix Laboratories, LLC, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Maureen BeananOffice of Biodefense, Research Resources, and Translational Research, Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (DMID), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Robert DuncanLaboratory of Emerging Pathogens, Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD, USA. Electronic address: robert.duncan@fda.hhs.gov.
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research · USNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · US

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

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

Multiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionBabesia microtiCulture MediaDNA, BacterialEscherichia coliFrancisella tularensisHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingCulture MediaDNA, BacterialBlood-borne pathogensReal-time PCRSpiked specimensTarget Enriched Multiplex PCR

Identifiers

PMID27838540
PMCPMC5224703
OpenAlexW2557229301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.