The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensitivity and specificity of PCR for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a blind comparison study among seven laboratories
Open accessAbstract
PCR is, in principle, a simple and rapid test for use in the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. However, virtually no data are available on the reliability and reproducibility of the method. In order to assess the validity of PCR for the detection of mycobacteria in clinical samples, seven laboratories participated in a blinded study of 200 sputum, saliva, and water samples containing either known numbers of Mycobacterium bovis BCG cells or no added organisms. Each laboratory used its own protocol for pretreatment, DNA extraction, and detection of the amplification product. Insertion sequence IS6110 was the target for DNA amplification. Several participating laboratories reported high levels of false-positive PCR results, with rates ranging from 3 to 20% and with one extreme value of 77%. The levels of sensitivity also ranged widely among the different participants. A positive PCR result was reported for 2 to 90% of the samples with 10(3) mycobacteria. Although most participants did include control tests to check the sensitivity and specificity of the PCR, the sequence of operations from sample pretreatment to purification of DNA from bacteria was not always monitored adequately. During these procedures cross-contaminating DNA was introduced and/or bacterial DNA was lost. The results of the study show that the implementation of an effective system for monitoring sensitivity and specificity is required before the PCR can be used reliably in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Primer-Directed Enzymatic Amplification of DNA with a Thermostable DNA Polymerase
Saiki, R. K., Gelfand, D. H., Stoffel, S., Scharf, S. J., Higuchi, R., Horn, G. T., Mullis, K. B., & Erlich, H. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2448875 · Cited by 17,719
Plikaytis, B. B., Eisenach, K. D., Crawford, J. T., & Shinnick, T. M. (1991) · Molecular and Cellular Probes · doi:10.1016/0890-8508(91)90043-j · Cited by 34
Self-citation
Cited by
Specific immune-based diagnosis of tuberculosis
Andersen, P., Munk, M., Pollock, J., & Doherty, T. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02742-2 · Cited by 924
Purohit, M. (2015) · JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2015/12422.5792 · Cited by 191
Multiplex PCR for rapid diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis
Kusum, S., Aman, S., Pallab, R., Kumar, S. S., Manish, M., Sudesh, P., Subhash, V., & Meera, S. (2011) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-011-6010-4 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Noordhoek, G. T., Kolk, A. H., Bjune, G., Catty, D., Dale, J. W., Fine, P. E., Godfrey-Faussett, P., Cho, S. N., Shinnick, T., & Svenson, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1994-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-284
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1950784241
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 43.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.