ArticleBMC infectious diseases2001
CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation.Hepatology international · 2024Guideline
- Early abnormal liver enzyme levels may increase the prevalence of human cytomegalovirus antigenaemia after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.The Journal of international medical research · 2017Article
- Relationship between pp65 antigenemia levels and real-time quantitative DNA PCR for Human Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) management in immunocompromised patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2007Article
- Diagnostic value of reverse transcription-PCR for detection of cytomegalovirus pp67 in samples from solid-organ transplant recipients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCMV is a major clinical problem in transplant recipients. Thus, it is important to use sensitive and specific diagnostic techniques to rapidly and accurately detect CMV infection and identify patients at risk of developing CMV disease. In the present study, CMV infection after liver transplantation was monitored retrospectively by two molecular biology assays - a quantitative PCR assay and a qualitative NASBA assay. The results were compared with those obtained by prospective pp65 antigenemia determinations. MATERIALS AND
methods87 consecutive samples from 10 liver transplanted patients were tested for CMV by pp65 antigenemia, and CMV monitor and NASBA pp67 mRNA assay.
resultsCMV infection was detected in all patients by antigenemia and CMV monitor, whereas NASBA assay identified only 8/10 patients with viremia. Furthermore, CMV infection was never detected earlier by molecular biology assays than by antigenemia. Only 5/10 patients with CMV infection developed CMV disease. Using a cut off value of 8 cells/50,000, antigenemia was found to be the assay that better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. However, the kinetics of the onset of infection detected by NASBA and CMV monitor seemed to have better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. Furthermore, before onset of disease, CMV pp67 mRNA was found to have similar or better negative and positive predictive values for the development of CMV disease.
conclusionsThe present data, suggests that the concomitant use of antigenemia and pp67 mRNA assay gives the best identification of patients at risk of developing 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.