ArticleBlood purification2019
The Application Analysis of Multiplex Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for Detection of Pathogenic Bacterium in Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis.
Article in Blood purification, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effective in-house COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing with yeast-derivedAnnals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo estimate the clinical value of bacterial detection in peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis (PDAP) by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This study was undertaken to evaluate multiplex RT-PCR for identifying clinically significant bacteria in PDAP.
methodsSeventy peritoneal dialysate specimens were collected and traditional bacterial culture and universal primer RT-PCR detection of the bacterial were used.
resultsThe positive rate of traditional culture method was 65.71% (46/70) and that of universal primer RT-PCR was 81.42% (57/70). For 6 clinical commonly pathogenic bacteria, multiplex, and monoplex RT-PCR all detected 38 positive ones within the 57 specimens that were detected positive by universal primer RT-PCR. The results of the 2 methods were completely identical. Detecting bacteria by universal primer PCR and Monoplex RT-PCR needs 4-5 and 6-9 h, respectively, while multiplex RT-PCR needs less than 3 h.
conclusionOur results demonstrated that the multiplex RT-PCR can detect several kinds of bacteria simultaneously and it is also more practical and convenient than monoplex RT-PCR.
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.