ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003
Comparison of molecular tests for detection and quantification of cell-associated cytomegalovirus DNA.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beta-herpesviruses in febrile children with cancer.Emerging infectious diseases · 2008Article
- Differential inhibition of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) by toll-like receptor ligands mediated by interferon-beta in human foreskin fibroblasts and cervical tissue.Virology journal · 2007Article
- Evaluation of real-time PCR laboratory-developed tests using analyte-specific reagents for cytomegalovirus quantification.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
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 at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A cell-based standard was developed to compare the COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor test, the Hybrid Capture System CMV DNA test, and the NucliSens CMV test. The standard was prepared by infecting human foreskin fibroblasts (HFFs) with cytomegalovirus (CMV) strain AD169 at low multiplicity of infection (0.03) and harvesting the cells at 6 h postinfection. Buffy coat cells were added to produce concentrations of from 0 to 10(5) HFFs per 10(6) total cells. Five laboratories performed the Amplicor PCR test and two laboratories performed the NucliSens and Hybrid Capture tests. The Amplicor PCR test was 1.5 to 2.0 log(10) more sensitive than the Hybrid Capture test. The specificities of the Amplicor PCR and Hybrid Capture tests were 100 and 93.8%, respectively. The linear range of the Amplicor PCR and Hybrid Capture tests were 2 to 4.48 log(10) and 3.48 to at least 5.0 log(10) CMV target cells, respectively. The standard deviations of the Amplicor PCR and Hybrid Capture tests varied throughout their linear range, and for both tests the variability was greater for lower concentrations of input CMV DNA. These data allow the direct comparison of viral load values between the Amplicor and Hybrid Capture tests. The analytical sensitivity of the NucliSens test could not be determined by using the 6-h standard, because the low multiplicity of infection and short culture time did not allow for adequate transcription of pp67 late mRNA measured in the test. Extending the incubation time of the standard to 24 h increased the analytical sensitivity of the NucliSens test to 3.0 log(10) target cells.
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.