ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparative Evaluation of Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for DNA and RNA Viral Target.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficient nucleic acid extraction is essential for reliable viral load testing, yet performance can differ widely depending on the extraction system and sample type. We compared three automated platforms, QIAcube, EZ1 Advanced, and Maxwell RSC, for their ability to recover cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA and West Nile virus (WNV) RNA from common clinical matrices.
methodsMock specimens were prepared using whole blood, plasma, serum, and urine collected from two donors. Samples were spiked with CMV or WNV culture material and extracted in triplicate on each platform according to the manufacturers' protocols. Viral loads were measured using ELITech ELITE MGB assays on the InGenius system. Whole blood samples were also tested after a 1:4 dilution. Matrix-specific standard curves were applied, and viral loads were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with false-discovery rate adjustment.
resultsExtraction efficiency differed substantially by platform and specimen type. For CMV, QIAcube consistently produced the highest DNA recovery across all matrices, with particularly large differences in plasma and serum, where EZ1 and Maxwell RSC yielded significantly lower loads. The WNV results varied by matrix: EZ1 and QIAcube performed similarly in plasma, while Maxwell RSC achieved the highest RNA recovery in whole blood. While the QIAcube exhibited reduced WNV recovery in blood, it achieved the best performance in serum, as specified by the kit. No significant platform differences were observed for urine. Diluting whole blood reduced variability between platforms.
conclusionsBoth sample matrix and extraction system strongly influence nucleic acid recovery. These results highlight the need for matrix-specific validation and standardized extraction approaches in molecular diagnostics.
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.