ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2004
Clinical evaluation of the digene hybrid capture II test and the COBAS AMPLICOR monitor test for determination of hepatitis B virus DNA levels.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic comparison between Daan real-time PCR and Cobas TaqMan for quantification of HBV DNA levels in patients with CHB.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Nuclease-resistant double-stranded DNA controls or standards for hepatitis B virus nucleic acid amplification assays.Virology journal · 2009Article
- Tenofovir (TDF) has stronger antiviral effect than adefovir (ADV) against lamivudine (LAM)-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV).Hepatology international · 2008Article
- Comparison of real-time polymerase chain reaction with the COBAS Amplicor test for quantitation of hepatitis B virus DNA in serum samples.World journal of gastroenterology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The measurement of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA is important for the assessment of liver disease and treatment efficacy. Most commercially available assays for the determination of HBV DNA levels have limited linear ranges. This study was performed to evaluate the clinical performance of the Digene Hybrid Capture II (Digene HC II assay) and the COBAS AMPLICOR Monitor test (COBAS-AM assay), with special emphasis on anti-HBV e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients with low HBV DNA levels. A total of 425 Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B were recruited. A total of 107 patients were HBeAg positive, and 318 patients were HBeAg negative. The Digene HC II assay and the COBAS-AM assay had similar intra-assay and interassay variabilities. A total of 264 patients (62.1%) had HBV DNA levels undetectable by the Digene HC II assay, and 47 patients (11.1%) had HBV DNA levels undetectable by the COBAS-AM assay (P < 0.001). For the 161 patients with HBV DNA levels detectable by the Digene HC II assay, the HBV DNA levels obtained by the Digene HC II assay and by the COBAS-AM assay showed an excellent correlation (r = 0.95; P < 0.001). The linear ranges of the Digene HC II assay and the COBAS-AM assay marginally overlapped. Before HBV DNA levels could be determined by the COBAS-AM assay, predilution had to be performed for 158 of 161 patients (98.1%) with HBV DNA levels detectable by the Digene HC II assay and for 10 of 264 patients (3.8%) with HBV DNA levels undetectable by the Digene HC II assay. The cost for assaying each serum sample by using different strategies was calculated. The COBAS-AM assay was more sensitive than the Digene HC II assay and more suitable for monitoring low levels of HBV viremia.
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.