ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005
Comparison of methods for detection of vaccinia virus in patient specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. 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.
- Article
- Evaluation of the Tetracore Orthopox BioThreat® antigen detection assay using laboratory grown orthopoxviruses and rash illness clinical specimens.Journal of virological methods · 2013Article
- Increased ATP generation in the host cell is required for efficient vaccinia virus production.Journal of biomedical science · 2009Article
- Detection of vaccinia virus DNA, but not infectious virus, in the blood of smallpox vaccine recipients.Vaccine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We analyzed a shell vial culture assay (SVA), real-time PCR, and a direct fluorescent antibody assay (DFA) for rapid detection of vaccinia virus from vaccination sites of Dryvax vaccine recipients. Of 47 samples assayed, 100% were positive by PCR, 89% were positive by SVA, and 40% were positive by DFA. DFA was limited by the need for adequate numbers of cells, with 32% of samples inadequate for interpretation. DFA performed better with specimens from patients who had not previously received the vaccine. PCR was positive for longer times postvaccination than was SVA. Infectious virus could be recovered after 45 min of acetone fixation of shell vial coverslips. Commercially available polyclonal antibodies cross-reacted with other orthopoxviruses and herpes simplex 1, but commercially available monoclonal antibodies were specific for vaccinia virus. In summary, PCR was the most sensitive test for detecting vaccinia virus in clinical specimens, while the DFA was the most rapid but the least sensitive test.
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.