ArticleMicroorganisms2020
Evaluation of Extraction Methods for Clinical Metagenomic Assay.
Article in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Narrative review of application of metagenomic approaches to study the link between oropharyngeal microbiome and infectious diseases.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Lumbar infection caused byWorld journal of clinical cases · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Clinical metagenomics is a promising approach that helps to identify etiological agents in cases of unknown infections. For the efficient detection of an unknown pathogen, the extraction method must be carefully selected for the maximum recovery of nucleic acid from different microorganisms. The aim of this study was to evaluate different extraction methods that have the ability to isolate nucleic acids from different types of pathogens with good quality and quantity for efficient use in clinical metagenomic identification. (2) Methods: A mock sample spiked with five different pathogens was used for the comparative evaluation of different commercial extraction kits. Extracted samples were subjected to library preparation and run on MiSeq. The selected extraction method based on the outcome of the comparative evaluation was used subsequently for the nucleic acid isolation of all infectious agents in clinical respiratory samples with multiple infections. (3) Results: The protocol using the PowerViral
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.