ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
DNA decontamination methods for internal quality management in clinical PCR laboratories.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. 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.
- Residual DNA and cleaning protocols: a comparative analysis of forensic evidence examination methods.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Best practices for generating and analyzing 16S rRNA amplicon data to track coral microbiome dynamics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Assessment of Capacity to Capture DNA Aerosols by Clean Filters for Molecular Biology Experiments.Microbes and environments · 2018Article
- DNA decontamination methods for internal quality management in clinical PCR laboratories.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
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
backgroundThe polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, one of the most commonly applied methods in diagnostic and molecular biology, has a frustrating downside: the occurrence of false-positive signals due to contamination. In previous research, various DNA decontamination methods have been developed to overcome this limitation. Unfortunately, the use of random or poorly focused sampling methods for monitoring air and/or object surfaces leads to the incomplete elimination during decontamination procedures. We herein attempted to develop a novel DNA decontamination method (environmental surveillance, including surface and air sampling) and quality management program for clinical molecular diagnostic laboratories (or clinical PCR laboratories).
methodsHere, we performed a step-by-step evaluation of current DNA decontamination methods and developed an effective procedure for assessing the presence of decontaminating DNA via PCR analysis. Performing targeted environmental surveillance by sampling, which reached optimal performance over 2 weeks, and the decontamination process had been verified as reliable. Additionally, the process was validated to not affect PCR amplification efficiency based on a comparative study.
resultsIn this study, effective guidelines for DNA decontamination were developed. The method employed ensured that surface DNA contamination could be effectively identified and eliminated. Furthermore, our study highlighted the importance of overall quality assurance and good clinical laboratory practices for preventing contamination, which are key factors for compliance with regulatory or accreditation requirements.
conclusionsTaken together, we provided the evidence that the presented scheme ranged from troubleshooting to the elimination of surface contamination, could serve as critical foundation for developing regular environmental surveillance guidelines for PCR laboratories.
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.