2013
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.02005-13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Six Real-Time PCR Assays for Qualitative Detection of Cytomegalovirus in Clinical Specimens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(11 reference statements)
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the ability of various commercial kits to manually extract CMV DNA from spiked human specimens varies [ 34 ]. Further, compared to other clinical specimens, respiratory tract specimens have been reported to account for the highest CMV PCR detection rate [ 18 , 19 , 35 ], for which similar results were found in this study ( Table 2 and Table 3 ). Comparison of the sensitivities of different extraction protocols in various clinical specimens for CMV PCR requires further investigation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…However, the ability of various commercial kits to manually extract CMV DNA from spiked human specimens varies [ 34 ]. Further, compared to other clinical specimens, respiratory tract specimens have been reported to account for the highest CMV PCR detection rate [ 18 , 19 , 35 ], for which similar results were found in this study ( Table 2 and Table 3 ). Comparison of the sensitivities of different extraction protocols in various clinical specimens for CMV PCR requires further investigation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…It should be taken into account that not all the methods to detect CMV show the same efficacy, also depending, i.e ., on the available PCR kits. Moreover, differences can be also related to the analyzed samples [23, 128].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four CSF samples were positive for a bacterium (S. agalactiae [n ϭ 2], S. pneumoniae [n ϭ 2]) during the study period and were also included. Routine viral testing for EV, CMV, HHV-6, and VZV was performed using a combination of targeted, laboratorydeveloped tests (LDTs) that were validated according to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) requirements (11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Routine testing of CSF for HSV-1/2 was performed using an LDT on samples received up until September 2016 and using an FDA-cleared, commercial method (Simplexa HSV 1&2 Direct; DiaSorin, Cypress, CA) thereafter (11).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%