ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Evaluation of the PrimeCapture CMV DNA detection plate system for detection of cytomegalovirus in clinical specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leukocyte concentration in the performance of the pp65 antigenemia assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the availability of anticytomegalovirus (CMV) therapeutic agents, rapid detection of CMV is important in the care and management of the immunosuppressed patient. The PrimeCapture CMV DNA Detection Plate System (PC-PCR) was evaluated for the detection of CMV in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The resolution of discordant results was performed by consensus testing utilizing a combination of conventional cell culture (TC-CPE), the CMV-antigenemia (CMV-Ag) assay, one or more in-house CMV nested PCR assays, and/or patient evaluation and follow-up. Of 51 blood specimens from 34 patients, 23 (45%) were identified as true positives. PC-PCR was significantly more sensitive than the CMV-Ag assay, TC-CPE, or a combination of both tests. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) for PC-PCR, the CMV-Ag assay, TC-CPE, and a combination of CMV-Ag and TC-CPE were 78, 75, 72, 81%; 46, 100, 100, 70%; 39, 100, 100, 67%; and 58, 100, 100, 73%, respectively. CMV was not detected or isolated in CSF, resulting in a combined PC-PCR sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 77, 90, 68, and 93%, respectively. Among those laboratorians considering the incorporation of molecular CMV diagnostics into their clinical microbiology or virology laboratories, the CMV PC-PCR offers a relatively simple-to-perform and sensitive assay system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.