ArticleMicroorganisms2022
Technical Evaluation of qPCR Multiplex Assays for the Detection of
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. 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.
- Development and Application of a Multiplex qPCR Rapid Detection System for Syndromic Detection of Tick-Borne Pathogen Coinfections.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Small mammals as hosts of vector-borne pathogens in the High Tatra Mountains region in Slovakia, Central Europe.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe extent to which infections with
methodsWe evaluated the analytical specificity, sensitivity and robustness of qPCR assays for the detection of
resultsThe qPCRs were found to perform well, given the difficulties of dealing with microorganisms for which confirmed patient materials are scarce or non-existent, a hurdle that was partially overcome by using synthetic controls. Spiking blood samples with the tested microorganisms showed that the detection of the TBPs was not inhibited by the presence of blood. The acceptable sensitivity when multiplexing the different pathogens, the good inter-assay variability and the absence of cross-reactivity make them potentially suitable as human diagnostics.
conclusionsThe qPCRs evaluated in this study are technically suitable for the laboratory diagnostic assessment of clinical samples for infection with tick-borne pathogens. However, clinical validation and independent confirmation are still needed, pending the availability of sufficient human samples for testing in different laboratories.
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.