↓ Skip to main content

False-Positive Results and Contamination in Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays: Suggestions for a Prevent and Destroy Strategy

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
71 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
243 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
False-Positive Results and Contamination in Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays: Suggestions for a Prevent and Destroy Strategy
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2004
DOI 10.1007/s10096-004-1100-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Borst, A. T. A. Box, A. C. Fluit

Abstract

Contamination of samples with DNA is still a major problem in microbiology laboratories, despite the wide acceptance of PCR and other amplification techniques for the detection of frequently low amounts of target DNA. This review focuses on the implications of contamination in the diagnosis and research of infectious diseases, possible sources of contaminants, strategies for prevention and destruction, and quality control. Contamination of samples in diagnostic PCR can have far-reaching consequences for patients, as illustrated by several examples in this review. Furthermore, it appears that the (sometimes very unexpected) sources of contaminants are diverse (including water, reagents, disposables, sample carry over, and amplicon), and contaminants can also be introduced by unrelated activities in neighboring laboratories. Therefore, lack of communication between researchers using the same laboratory space can be considered a risk factor. Only a very limited number of multicenter quality control studies have been published so far, but these showed false-positive rates of 9-57%. The overall conclusion is that although nucleic acid amplification assays are basically useful both in research and in the clinic, their accuracy depends on awareness of risk factors and the proper use of procedures for the prevention of nucleic acid contamination. The discussion of prevention and destruction strategies included in this review may serve as a guide to help improve laboratory practices and reduce the number of false-positive amplification results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 238 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 18%
Student > Master 44 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 48 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 8%
Engineering 11 4%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 56 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,010,989
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#202
of 3,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,327
of 63,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 63,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.