Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8118790›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews1994

Magnetic separation techniques in diagnostic microbiology.

O Olsvik, T Popovic, E Skjerve, K S Cudjoe, E Hornes, J Ugelstad, M Uhlén

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Rapid and sensitive isolation ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  5. Carbapenem-ResistantNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Specific Isolation ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Analytical evaluation of an immunomagnetic separation PCR assay to detect pathogenicJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

O OlsvikFoodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
T Popovic
E Skjerve
K S Cudjoe
E Hornes
J Ugelstad
M Uhlén

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The principles of magnetic separation aided by antibodies or other specific binding molecules have been used for isolation of specific viable whole organisms, antigens, or nucleic acids. Whereas growth on selective media may be helpful in isolation of a certain bacterial species, immunomagnetic separation (IMS) technology can isolate strains possessing specific and characteristic surface antigens. Further separation, cultivation, and identification of the isolate can be performed by traditional biochemical, immunologic, or molecular methods. PCR can be used for amplification and identification of genes of diagnostic importance for a target organism. The combination of IMS and PCR reduces the assay time to several hours while increasing both specificity and sensitivity. Use of streptavidin-coated magnetic beads for separation of amplified DNA fragments, containing both biotin and a signal molecule, has allowed for the conversion of the traditional PCR into an easy-to-read microtiter plate format. The bead-bound PCR amplicons can also easily be sequenced in an automated DNA sequencer. The latter technique makes it possible to obtain sequence data of 300 to 600 bases from 20 to 30 strains, starting with clinical samples, within 12 to 24 h. Sequence data can be used for both diagnostic and epidemiologic purposes. IMS has been demonstrated to be a useful method in diagnostic microbiology. Most recent publications describe IMS as a method for enhancing the specificity and sensitivity of other detection systems, such as PCR, and providing considerable savings in time compared with traditional diagnostic systems. The relevance to clinical diagnosis has, however, not yet been fully established for all of these new test principles. In the case of PCR, for example, the presence of specific DNA in a food sample does not demonstrate the presence of a live organism capable of inducing a disease. However, all tests offering increased sensitivity and specificity of detection, combined with reduced time of analysis, have to be seriously evaluated.

Indexed as

Immunomagnetic SeparationAnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsBase SequenceHumansMolecular Sequence DataParasitic DiseasesPlasmodium falciparumPolymerase Chain ReactionSchistosoma mansoniSequence AnalysisVirus DiseasesViruses

Identifiers

PMID8118790
PMCPMC358305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.