ArticlePloS one2019
Inhibition of polymerase chain reaction: Pathogen-specific controls are better than human gene amplification.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
- COVID-19 PCR: frequency of internal control inhibition in clinical practice.Access microbiology · 2023Article
- Rapid and Accurate Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An Assessment of Diagnostic Assays and Sample Types in the Detection of an Attenuated Genotype 5 African Swine Fever Virus in European Pigs over a 3-Month Period.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- DNA Microsystems for Biodiagnosis.Micromachines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PCR inhibition is frequent in medical microbiology routine practice and may lead to false-negative results; however there is no consensus on how to detect it. Pathogen-specific and human gene amplifications are widely used to detect PCR inhibition. We aimed at comparing the value of PCR inhibitor detection using these two methods. We analysed Cp shifts (ΔCp) obtained from qPCRs targeting either the albumin gene or the pathogen-specific sequence used in two laboratory-developed microbiological qPCR assays. 3152 samples including various matrixes were included. Pathogen-specific amplification and albumin qPCR identified 62/3152 samples (2.0%), and 409/3152 (13.0%) samples, respectively, as inhibited. Only 16 samples were detected using both methods. In addition, the use of the Youden's index failed to determine adequate Cp thresholds for albumin qPCR, even when we distinguished among the different sample matrixes. qPCR targeting the albumin gene therefore appears not adequate to identify the presence of PCR inhibitors in microbiological PCR assays. Our data may be extrapolated to other heterologous targets and should discourage their use to assess the presence of PCR inhibition in microbiological PCR assays.
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.