ArticleGenes2020
Comparative Analysis of ANDE 6C Rapid DNA Analysis System and Traditional Methods.
Article in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Commercially Available Integrated Systems for Forensic DNA Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Developmental validation of the rapidpuncher, an automated laser-based sampling system that eliminates cross-contamination in the forensic analysis of FTA cards.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- DNA forensics at forty: the way forward.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Disaster victim identification: the co-utilisation of applied biosystems RapidHIT ID system and DJI Matrice 300 drone for onsite DNA analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Evaluation of OpenArray™ as a Genotyping Method for Forensic DNA Phenotyping and Human Identification.Genes · 2021Article
- Special Issue "Forensic Genetics and Genomics".Genes · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid DNA analysis is an ultrafast and fully automated DNA-typing system, which can produce interpretable genetic profiles from biological samples within 90 minutes. This "swab in-profile out" method comprises DNA extraction, amplification by PCR multiplex, separation and detection of DNA fragments by capillary electrophoresis. The aim of study was the validation of the Accelerated Nuclear DNA Equipment (ANDE) 6C system as a typing method for reference samples according to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard. Here, we report the evaluation of the validity and reproducibility of results by the comparison of the genetic profiles generated by the ANDE 6C System with those generated by standard technologies. A quantity of 104 buccal swabs were analyzed both through the ANDE 6C technology and the traditional method (DNA extraction and quantification, amplification and separation by capillary electrophoresis). Positive typing was observed in 97% of cases for ANDE 6C technology with only three buccal swabs failing to reveal interpretable signals. Concordance was determined by comparing the allele calls generated by ANDE 6C and conventional technology. Comparison of 2800 genotypes revealed a concordance rate of 99.96%. These results met the ISO/IEC 17025 requirements, enabling us to receive the accreditation for this method. Finally, rapid technology has certainly reached a level of reliability which has made its use in laboratories of forensic genetics a reality.
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.