Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31811375›Full record

ReviewCurrent microbiology2020

Key Factors for Removing Bias in Viability PCR-Based Methods: A Review.

F Codony, M Dinh-Thanh, G Agustí

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PCR-BasedMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. An Improved Real-Time Viability PCR Assay to DetectInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

F CodonyLaboratori Municipal Aigües de Mataró, Carrer Pitàgores 1-7, 08304, Mataró, Spain. Francesc.codony@aiguesmataro.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-5128
M Dinh-ThanhFB Biologie, Freie Univesität Berlin, Takustr. 3, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
G AgustíDepartment of Òptica I Optometria, Facultat D'Òptica, Univesitat Politécnica de Calalunya, Carrer Violinista Vellsolà 37, 08222, Terrassa, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last decade, the viability PCR approach has been investigated intensively with the goal of detecting solely the DNA derived from intact cells by removing the bias resulting from dead or damaged cell artifacts. However, since the first published paper in 2003 and despite the various continuous improvements, the stubborn reality is that in most cases the goal has not been achieved. Complete neutralization of nucleic acids derived from dead microorganisms was not possible, at least without affecting live cells. However, recently published works in this field show how neutralization rates can be improved. In this communication, we review recent improvements that enable effective vPCR procedures.

Indexed as

BiasArtifactsDNA, BacterialMicrobial ViabilityPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.