ArticleOman medical journal2022
Laboratory Performance and Clinical Correlation of Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction as a Diagnostic Test for
Article in Oman medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between real-time polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold value and clinical presentation in children with Bordetella pertussis.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a diagnostic tool for pertussis (whooping cough), vis-à-vis culture, the long-time gold standard, with emphasis on the importance of clinical correlation in determining specificity. Methods: Nasopharyngeal/throat swab samples in charcoal media received from all over Oman at Central Public Health Laboratories from January 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. These samples were tested using both culture and real-time PCR. PCR was compared with culture to calculate its sensitivity and specificity. Further clinical correlation was conducted for the discrepant cases using different case definitions. Results: A total of 590 nasopharyngeal/throat samples were included in the study. Out of the 590 samples, 73 were positive by PCR compared with 26 positive samples by culture (which were also positive by PCR). The sensitivity and specificity of PCR compared with those of culture were 100% (95% CI: 86.77-100) and 91.7% (95% CI: 89.07-93.81), respectively. To rule out false-positive results by PCR, clinical correlation was performed. Out of 47 cases that were positive by PCR but negative by culture, 44 cases were clinically evaluated by accessing clinical details. Out of these 44 cases, 21 (47.7%) met the pertussis clinical criteria according to the CDC-2014 case definition, 41 (93.2%) according to the Europe-2008 case definition, and 44 (100%) according to the Canada-2009 and Australia-2014 case definitions. With only positive PCR, these cases were classified as confirmed according to these case definitions, which increased the specificity of PCR to 95.7-100%. The mean turnaround time was 3.5 days for PCR compared to 6.2 days for culture. Conclusions: Real-time PCR is a highly sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of
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.