ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2006
Molecular diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Viral glycoproteins: biological role and application in diagnosis.Virusdisease · 2016Review
- Immunoreactivity characterisation of the three structural regions of the human coronavirus OC43 nucleocapsid protein by Western blot: implications for the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.Journal of virological methods · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The etiologic agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has been identified as a new type of coronavirus, known as SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Although the SARS epidemic has subsided, many authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have warned of the possible re-emergence of this highly infectious disease. Although antibody-based diagnosis of SARS has been demonstrated to be a reliable proof of SARS infection, it is not sensitive enough for detection during the early phase of the disease. To date, based on the publicly released full genomic sequences of SARS-CoV, various molecular detection methods based on reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been developed. Although most of the assays have initially been focused on RNA extracted from nasopharyngeal aspirates, urine, and stools, several of the more recently developed assays have been based on the analysis of RNA extracted from plasma and serum. Such assays allow the more standardized quantitative expression of viral loads and are potentially useful for early SARS diagnosis. In this chapter, two real-time quantitative RT-PCR systems for the quantification of SARS-CoV RNA in serum are discussed. The two RT-PCR systems, one aimed toward the nucleocapsid region and the other toward the polymerase region of the virus genome, have a detection rate of up to 80% during the first week of illness. These quantitative systems are potentially useful for the early diagnosis of SARS and can also provide viral load information that might assist clinicians in making a prognostic evaluation of an infected individual.
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.