Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16481036›Full record

ReviewMolecular aspects of medicine

Detection and monitoring of virus infections by real-time PCR.

F Watzinger, K Ebner, T Lion

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular aspects of medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Geminivirus diseases of legumes in India: current status and approaches for management.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2025
    Review

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

F WatzingerChildren's Cancer Research Institute, St. Anna Kinderspital, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
K Ebner
T Lion

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The employment of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques for virus detection and quantification offers the advantages of high sensitivity and reproducibility, combined with an extremely broad dynamic range. A number of qualitative and quantitative PCR virus assays have been described, but commercial PCR kits are available for quantitative analysis of a limited number of clinically important viruses only. In addition to permitting the assessment of viral load at a given time point, quantitative PCR tests offer the possibility of determining the dynamics of virus proliferation, monitoring of the response to treatment and, in viruses displaying persistence in defined cell types, distinction between latent and active infection. Moreover, from a technical point of view, the employment of sequential quantitative PCR assays in virus monitoring helps identifying false positive results caused by inadvertent contamination of samples with traces of viral nucleic acids or PCR products. In this review, we provide a survey of the current state-of-the-art in the application of the real-time PCR technology to virus analysis. Advantages and limitations of the RQ-PCR methodology, and quality control issues related to standardization and validation of diagnostic assays are discussed.

Indexed as

Computer SystemsDNA PrimersDNA ProbesForecastingHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionQuality ControlVirus DiseasesDNA PrimersDNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID16481036
PMCPMC7112306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.