ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2019
A novel ready-to-use dry-reagent polymerase chain reaction for detection of
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has wide acceptance for rapid identification of pathogens and also for diagnosis of infectious conditions. However, because of economic and expertise constraints, a majority of small or peripheral laboratories do not use PCR. The objective of the present study was to develop a dry-reagent PCR assay as an alternative to conventional PCR to assess its applicability in routine laboratory practice using malB gene for identification of Escherichia coli as a model. Methods: A total of 184 isolates were selected for the study comprising clinical isolates of E. coli and non-E. coli including Shigella sp. and a few other control strains. The DNA was isolated from all the isolates. The isolated DNA as well as the overnight grown bacterial cultures were subjected to both conventional wet PCR and dry-reagent PCR. Results: The genomic DNA isolated from E. coli showed amplification of malB gene in both conventional wet and dry-reagent PCR and the band was observed at 491 bp. In dry-reagent PCR, the overnight grown E. coli cells also showed positive result. The non-E. coli strains other than Shigella sp. showed negative in both conventional wet and dry-reagent PCR. Shigella sp. showed positive in both conventional wet and dry-reagent PCR. Interpretation & conclusions: Considering the elimination of genomic DNA isolation step, and similar results with the conventional wet PCR, dry-reagent PCR may be a good alternative for the conventional wet 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.