Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16672399›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006

Multilaboratory comparison of hepatitis C virus viral load assays.

A M Caliendo, A Valsamakis, Y Zhou, B Yen-Lieberman, J Andersen, S Young, A Ferreira-Gonzalez, G J Tsongalis, R Pyles, J W Bremer and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

A M CaliendoEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. acalien@emory.edu
A Valsamakis
Y Zhou
B Yen-Lieberman
J Andersen
S Young
A Ferreira-Gonzalez
G J Tsongalis
R Pyles
J W Bremer
N S Lurain
Harvard University · USRush University Medical Center · USApplied Research Associates (United States) · USCleveland Clinic · USDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USEmory University · USJohns Hopkins University · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI038858 · NIAID · SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS, INC. · PI BENSON, CONSTANCE ANN · 1996 to 2008
$157.5M
DAIDS VIROLOGY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMN01AI035172 · NIAID · RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BREMER, JAMES W. · 1993 to 1998
–
NIAID NIH HHS N01-AI35172NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI038858NIAID NIH HHS U01-AI-38858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report a multilaboratory evaluation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) viral load assays to determine their linear range, reproducibility, subtype detection, and agreement. A panel of HCV RNA samples ranging in nominal concentration from 1.0 to 7.0 log10 IU/ml was constructed by diluting a clinical specimen (genotype 1b). Replicates of the panel were tested in multiple laboratories using the Abbott TaqMan analyte-specific reagent (Abbott reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR]), Roche TaqMan RUO (Roche RT-PCR), Roche Amplicor Monitor HCV 2.0 (Roche Monitor), and Bayer VERSANT HCV RNA 3.0 (Bayer bDNA) assays. Bayer bDNA-negative specimens were tested reflexively using the Bayer VERSANT HCV RNA qualitative assay (Bayer TMA). Abbott RT-PCR and Roche RT-PCR detected all 28 replicates with a concentration of 1.0 log10 IU/ml and were linear to 7.0 log10 IU/ml. Roche Monitor and Bayer bDNA detected 27 out of 28 and 13 out of 28 replicates, respectively, of 3.0 log10 IU/ml. Bayer TMA detected all seven replicates with 1.0 log10 IU/ml. Bayer bDNA was the most reproducible of the four assays. The mean viral load values for panel members in the linear ranges of the assays were within 0.5 log10 for the different tests. Eighty-nine clinical specimens of various genotypes (1 through 4) were tested in the Bayer bDNA, Abbott RT-PCR, and Roche RT-PCR assays. For Abbott RT-PCR, mean viral load values were 0.61 to 0.96 log10 greater than the values for Bayer bDNA assay for samples with genotype 1, 2, or 3 samples and 0.08 log10 greater for genotype 4 specimens. The Roche RT-PCR assay gave mean viral load values that were 0.28 to 0.82 log10 greater than those obtained with the Bayer bDNA assay for genotype 1, 2, and 3 samples. However, for genotype 4 samples the mean viral load value obtained with the Roche RT-PCR assay was, on average, 0.15 log10 lower than that of the Bayer bDNA. Based on these data, we conclude that the sensitivity and linear range of the Abbott and Roche RT-PCR assays enable them to be used for HCV diagnostics and therapeutic monitoring. However, the differences in the viral load values obtained with the different assays underscore the importance of using one assay when monitoring response to therapy.

Indexed as

GenotypeHepacivirusHepatitis CHumansLaboratoriesReproducibility of ResultsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityViremiaVirologyRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID16672399
PMCPMC1479213
OpenAlexW2128539953

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.