ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2000
Comparison of two commercial methods for measurement of cytomegalovirus load in blood samples after renal transplantation.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of the ReSSQ assay in relation to the COBAS AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR test and an in-house nested PCR method for detection of cytomegalovirus DNA.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Comparison of DNA amplification, mRNA amplification, and DNA hybridization techniques for detection of cytomegalovirus in bone marrow transplant recipients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Automated extraction and quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA in whole blood by real-time PCR assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Comparison of molecular tests for detection and quantification of cell-associated cytomegalovirus DNA.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Normalized quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA by competitive real-time PCR on the LightCycler instrument.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
- Monitoring of viral load by quantitative plasma PCR during active cytomegalovirus infection of individual liver transplant patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
- Evaluation of the Murex CMV DNA Hybrid Capture assay (version 2.0) for early diagnosis of cytomegalovirus infection in recipients of an allogeneic stem cell transplant.Bone marrow transplantation · 2001Article
- Comparison of three nucleic acid amplification assays of cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of cytomegalovirus encephalitis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
- CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays.BMC infectious diseases · 2001Article
- Predictive value of quantitative PCR-based viral burden analysis for eight human herpesviruses in pediatric solid organ transplant patients.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A cohort of 77 renal transplant recipients was prospectively studied for comparison of two commercially available cytomegalovirus (CMV) load assays, i.e., the COBAS AMPLICOR CMV Monitor test (Amplicor), using plasma samples, and the Murex Hybrid Capture System (HCS), using whole blood. The manufacturer of the HCS assay changed the version of the test from 1.0 (HCS-1) to 2.0 (HCS-2) after the first 37 patients had been tested. Despite the differences in principle and type of specimen used, the Amplicor and HCS assays gave comparable results. The regression line correlating the HCS-1 assay to the Amplicor assay was similar to that correlating the HCS-2 assay to the Amplicor assay. The HCS results could be converted to Amplicor-equivalent units by using linear-regression equations [log(10) HCS-1 result = 0.49 (log(10) Amplicor result) + 2.58, and log(10) HCS-2 result = 0.61 (log(10) Amplicor result) + 2.18]. The HCS-2 assay appeared to have the lowest detection limit, followed by the Amplicor assay and then the HCS-1 assay. When a sliding scale of cutoff values in Amplicor-equivalent units (>1,000, >2,500, >6,000, >16,000, >40,000, and >100,000 copies/ml) was applied to diagnose CMV disease, similar patterns of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were observed with the Amplicor and HCS assays. A cutoff value of >40,000 copies/ml has a low sensitivity (Amplicor, 29.4%; HCS, 41.2%) but is specific (Amplicor, 96.7%; HCS, 93.3%) and can be used for the differential diagnosis of CMV disease (PPV, 71.4% [Amplicor] or 63. 6% [HCS]; NPV, 82.9% [Amplicor] or 84.8% [HCS]). A lower cutoff value of >1,000 copies/ml improves the sensitivity (Amplicor, 76.5%; HCS, 82.4%) and has a high NPV (Amplicor, 91.8%; HCS, 94.2%) but, due to the low PPV (Amplicor, 46.2%; HCS, 56%), is useful only for exclusion of CMV disease.
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.