ReviewThe Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice2003
Update on molecular techniques for diagnostic testing of infectious disease.
Review in The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aptamers, the bivalent agents as probes and therapies for coronavirus infections: A systematic review.Molecular and cellular probes · 2020Pooled it
- An Upgrade on the Surveillance System of SARS-CoV-2: Deployment of New Methods for Genetic Inspection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Review
- Diagnostic investigation of emerging viruses of companion animals.The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice · 2008Review
- Quantitative assessment of the effect of uracil-DNA glycosylase on amplicon DNA degradation and RNA amplification in reverse transcription-PCR.Virology journal · 2005Article
- Methodology in diagnostic virology.The veterinary clinics of North America. Exotic animal practice · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The era of diagnostic molecular biology has arrived for small animal clinicians, and it is a near certainty that assays such as the PCR and RT-PCR will become more widely available for a wider array of infectious agents. Already there is an extensive list of infectious diseases of dogs and cats that have been investigated with molecular tools. A partial list is included in box 1. An understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the molecular techniques and some of the questions these techniques can answer for clinicians can serve practitioners well in their approach to the diagnosis of infectious diseases in dogs and cats. It is likely that additional applications of these tools to small animal medicine will become apparent as investigators use and refine them for their research purposes, or as new uses emerge from human medical applications. Clinicians also are likely to reap the benefits of this knowledge. Because samples often are acquired easily from clinical patients in most practice settings, access to these tools puts all clinicians in the group of discoverers of new, or variations of, infectious diseases and their clinical manifestations.
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.