ArticleIranian journal of microbiology2021
Use of a new multiplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction based assay for simultaneous detection of
Article in Iranian journal of microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates: a diagnostic test accuracy review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Molecular diagnostic methods for rapid diagnosis of central nervous system infections.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMATERIALS AND
methodsThe project involved 212 patients from whom cerebrospinal fluid samples were obtained. After total genome extraction and performing multiplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), the presence or absence of each infectious factor was determined by comparing with standard strains.
resultsThe specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value calculated were 100%, 92.9%, 50%, and 100%, respectively. So, due to the high specificity and sensitivity of the designed primers, they can be used instead of bacterial culture that takes at least 24 to 48 hours.
conclusionThe remarkable benefit of this method is associated with the speed (up to 3 hours) at which the procedure could be completed. It is also worth noting that this method can reduce the personnel unintentional errors which may occur in the laboratory. On the other hand, as this method simultaneously identifies four common factors that cause bacterial meningitis, it could be used as an auxiliary method diagnostic technique in laboratories particularly in cases of emergency medicine.
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.