Abstract
Solomon and colleagues’ test for the presence of infection is superb: cutting-edge real-time quantitative PCR that can detect a single copy of the chlamydial omp1 gene. The validation of this method is as rigorous as could be expected and the investigators’ efforts are to be applauded. The laboratory specimens were handled with full sterile precautions and in an appropriate PCR suite. But what about in the field? Precautions were taken but could organisms have been carried from one uncooperative child with severe mucopurulent discharge to the next middle-aged subject with a little old scarring? The various analyses and controls that could assess this possibility such as examination of results in consecutive subjects or in replicated specimens are lacking. Without more information the occurrence of contamination in the field around the sampling process cannot be excluded. (excerpt)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
