Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

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 access
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·1994·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.32.2.277-284.1994

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 429

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
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.