ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of the new fully automated extraction platform eMAG to the MagNA PURE 96 and the well-established easyMAG for detection of common human respiratory viruses.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in the point-of-care using digital PCR-based Dr. PCR™ Di20K COVID-19 Detection Kit without viral RNA extraction.Genes & genomics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Three Automated Extraction Systems for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Clinical Respiratory Specimens.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Performance of six SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection systems in symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric and maternal patients.Future virology · 2021Article
- Assay System for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- An evolving approach to the laboratory assessment of COVID-19.Journal of medical virology · 2020Review
- Comparison of Extraction Methods and Thermocyclers for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Using Clinical Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- PCR inhibition in qPCR, dPCR and MPS-mechanisms and solutions.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory viral infections constitute the majority of samples tested in the clinical virology laboratory during the winter season, and are mainly diagnosed using molecular assays, namely real-time PCR (qPCR). Therefore, a high-quality extraction process is critical for successful, reliable and sensitive qPCR results. Here we aimed to evaluate the performance of the newly launched eMAG compared to the fully automated MagNA PURE 96 (Roche, Germany) and to the semi-automated easyMAG (bioMerieux, France) extraction platforms. For this analysis, we assessed and compared the analytic and clinical performance of the three platforms, using 262 archived respiratory samples positive or negative to common viruses regularly examined in our laboratory (influenza A, B, H1N1pdm, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), human Metapneumovirus (hMPV), parainfluenza-3, adenovirus and negative samples). In addition, quantitated virus controls were used to determine the limit of detection of each extraction method. In all categories tested, eMAG results were comparable to those of the easyMAG and MagNa PURE 96, highly sensitive for all viruses and over 98% clinical specificity and sensitivity for all viruses tested. Together with its high level of automation, the bioMerieux eMAG is a high-quality extraction platform enabling effective molecular analysis and is mostly suitable for medium-sized 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.