ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploration of tongue dorsum sampling to support clinical diagnosis of leprosy patients in the Comoros: A cross-sectional study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Specimen adequacy assay controls in nucleic acid amplification tests do not correlate with nasopharyngeal swab collection method.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Development of a high sensitivity RT-PCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in individual and pooled nasopharyngeal samples.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory screening assays lacking Sample Adequacy Controls (SAC) may result in inadequate sample quality and thus false negative results. The non-adequate samples might represent a significant proportion of the total performed tests, thus resulting in sub-optimal infection control measures with implications that may be critical during pandemic times. The quantitative sample adequacy threshold can be established empirically, measuring the change in the frequency of positive results, as a function of the numerical value of "sample adequacy". Establishing a quantitative threshold for SAC requires a big number/volume of tests to be analyzed in order to have a statistically valid result. Herein, we are offering for the first time clear clinical evidence that a subset of results, which did not pass minimal sample adequacy criteria, have a significantly lower frequency of positivity compared with the "adequate" samples. Flagging these results and/or re-sampling them is a mitigation strategy, which can dramatically improve infection control measures.
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.