ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Evaluation of new quantitative assays for diagnosis and monitoring of cytomegalovirus disease in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of antigenemia assay for the diagnosis of cytomegalovirus gastrointestinal diseases in HIV-infected patients.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2013Article
- Prediction of cytomegalovirus (CMV) plasma load from evaluation of CMV whole-blood load in samples from renal transplant recipients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
- CMV quantitative PCR in the diagnosis of CMV disease in patients with HIV-infection - a retrospective autopsy based study.BMC infectious diseases · 2007Article
- Evaluation of the COBAS Amplicor HCMV Monitor for early detection and monitoring of human cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.Bone marrow transplantation · 2006Article
- Comparison of DNA amplification, mRNA amplification, and DNA hybridization techniques for detection of cytomegalovirus in bone marrow transplant recipients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Comparison of three nucleic acid amplification assays of cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of cytomegalovirus encephalitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
- The role of DNA amplification technology in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2000Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cobas Amplicor CMV Monitor (CMM) and Quantiplex CMV bDNA 2.0 (CMV bDNA 2.0), two new standardized and quantitative assays for the detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA in plasma and peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs), respectively, were compared to the CMV viremia assay, pp65 antigenemia assay, and the Amplicor CMV test (P-AMP). The CMV loads were measured in 384 samples from 58 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1-infected, CMV-seropositive subjects, including 13 with symptomatic CMV disease. The assays were highly concordant (agreement, 0.88 to 0.97) except when the CMV load was low. Quantitative results for plasma and PBLs were significantly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.92). For PBLs, positive results were obtained 125 days before symptomatic CMV disease by CMV bDNA 2.0 and 124 days by pp65 antigenemia assay, whereas they were obtained 46 days before symptomatic CMV disease by CMM and P-AMP. At the time of CMV disease diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CMV bDNA 2.0 were 92.3, 97.8, 92.3, and 97.8%, respectively, whereas they were 92.3, 93.3, 80, and 97. 8%, respectively, for the pp65 antigenemia assay; 84.6, 100, 100, and 95.7%, respectively, for CMM; and 76.9, 100, 100, and 93.8%, respectively, for P-AMP. Considering the entire follow-up, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CMV bDNA 2.0 were 92.3, 73.3, 52.1, and 97.1%, respectively, whereas they were 100, 55.5, 39.4, and 100%, respectively, for the pp65 antigenemia assay; 92.3, 86.7, 66.7, and 97.5%, respectively, for CMM; and 84.6, 91.1, 73.3, and 95.3%, respectively, for P-AMP. Detection of CMV in plasma is technically easy and, despite its later positivity (i.e., later than in PBLs), can provide enough information sufficiently early so that HIV-infected patients can be effectively treated. In addition, these standardized quantitative assays accurately monitor the efficacy of anti-CMV treatment.
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.