Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9163449›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1997

Comparison of two automated DNA amplification systems with a manual one-tube nested PCR assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

K Y Yuen, W C Yam, L P Wong, W H Seto

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis: Where We Are?Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2016
    Review
  5. Performance of the new automated Abbott RealTime MTB assay for rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Molecular diagnostics in tuberculosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

K Y YuenDepartment of Microbiology, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital.
W C Yam
L P Wong
W H Seto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eighty-four specimens of respiratory secretions culture positive for mycobacteria (70 positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and 14 positive for nontuberculous mycobacteria) and 120 culture-negative specimens were evaluated by three DNA amplification techniques: a manual in-house single-tube nested PCR (nPCR) and two commercial automated assays (the Cobas Amplicor System [aPCR-h] from Roche Diagnostic Systems and the Abbott LCx Probe System [aLCx-p] from Abbott Laboratories). The overall diagnostic sensitivities of the nPCR, aPCR-h, and aLCx-p were 77.1, 84.3, and 77.1%, respectively, and the sensitivities were 57.9, 57.9, and 36.8%, respectively, for smear-negative specimens. Specimens culture positive for nontuberculous mycobacteria were negative by all three assays. Eight culture-negative specimens which were positive by one or more assays had previously been documented by culture to be positive for M. tuberculosis and were taken from patients who were treated with antituberculosis agents. Retesting of specimens negative by one assay by the other two assays revealed that each test had its unique group of negative specimens. When considering the DNA extraction and amplification steps of these assays separately, it was found that extracts from aPCR-h and aLCx-p were compatible with nPCR amplication, while the two automated assays could only amplify extracts processed with their own reagents. Limiting dilution analysis revealed that the order of analytical sensitivity was nPCR, followed by aLCx-p and then aPCR-h. Comparison of the work flow of each assay revealed that although the aPCR-h demands the least specimen handling, the turnaround time of aLCx-p is the most favorable.

Indexed as

LipoproteinsNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesAntigens, BacterialAutomationDNA, BacterialHumansMycobacteriumMycobacterium tuberculosisPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, PulmonaryAg38 antigen, Mycobacterium tuberculosisAntigens, BacterialDNA, BacterialLipoproteins

Identifiers

PMID9163449
PMCPMC229754

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.