ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003
Comparison of DNA amplification, mRNA amplification, and DNA hybridization techniques for detection of cytomegalovirus in bone marrow transplant recipients.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of β-herpesviruses in Polish adult cord blood stem cell recipients by real-time PCR: single centre study.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2010Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of 676 specimens from 63 recipients of bone marrow allografts were tested for cytomegalovirus (CMV) by the following assays: CMV pp67 NucliSens (NS), AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR (RA), and the Digene CMV DNA test (DG). In a consensus analysis, the sensitivities and specificities were 60 and 99% (NS), 96 and 98% (RA), and 90 and 76% (DG), respectively; for detection of symptomatic CMV infection, they were 60 and 97% (NS), 65 and 97% (RA), and 95 and 77% (DG), respectively. In multivariate analysis, the major risk factor for symptomatic CMV infection was an increase in the viral load in the DG assay; in univariate analyses, maximum viral loads in both DG and RA assays and a rising viral load in the RA assay were also significant. The earliest detection of CMV replication was provided by the RA assay (mean, 39 days posttransplantation), followed by the DG assay (mean, 48 days) and the NS assay (mean, 58 days).
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.