Making standards for quantitative real-time pneumococcal PCR.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Comparison of Polymerase Chain Reaction and Urine Culture in the Evaluation of Patients with Complex Urinary Tract Infections.Biology · 2024
   Article
2. Validation of real-time polymerase chain reaction versus conventional polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of brucellosis in cattle sera.Veterinary world · 2021
   Article
3. Validation of a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Rapid Diagnosis of Invasive Pneumococcal Disease.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
   Article
4. Using real-time polymerase chain reaction as an alternative rapid method for enumeration of colony count in liveVeterinary world · 2017
   Article
5. Nasopharyngeal bacterial load as a marker for rapid and easy diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal disease in children from Mozambique.PloS one · 2017
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as