ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2007
Comparison of performance characteristics of three real-time reverse transcription-PCR test systems for detection and quantification of hepatitis C virus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatitis C Virus Treatment and Solid Organ Transplantation.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- The future of viral hepatitis testing: innovations in testing technologies and approaches.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Review
- Update on hepatitis B and C virus diagnosis.World journal of virology · 2015Review
- Molecular detection and genotyping of noroviruses.Food and environmental virology · 2012Review
- Performance of the Abbott RealTime and Roche Cobas TaqMan hepatitis C virus (HCV) assays for quantification of HCV genotypes.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Detection and quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV) by MultiCode-RTx real-time PCR targeting the HCV 3' untranslated region.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- A novel diagnostic target in the hepatitis C virus genome.PLoS medicine · 2009Article
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
We evaluated the performance characteristics of three real-time reverse transcription-PCR test systems for detection and quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV) and performed a direct comparison of the systems on the same clinical specimens. Commercial HCV panels (genotype 1b) were used to evaluate linear range, sensitivity, and precision. The Roche COBAS TaqMan HCV test for research use only (RUO) with samples processed on the MagNA Pure LC instrument (Roche RUO-MPLC) and Abbott analyte-specific reagents (ASR) with QIAGEN sample processing (Abbott ASR-Q) showed a sensitivity of 1.0 log(10) IU/ml with a linear dynamic range of 1.0 to 7.0 log(10) IU/ml. The Roche ASR in combination with the High Pure system (Roche ASR-HP) showed a sensitivity of 1.4 log(10) IU/ml with a linear dynamic range of 2.0 to 7.0 log(10) IU/ml. All of the systems showed acceptable reproducibility, the Abbott ASR-Q being the most reproducible of the three systems. Seventy-six clinical specimens (50 with detectable levels of HCV RNA and various titers and genotypes) were tested, and results were compared to those of the COBAS Amplicor HCV Monitor v2.0. Good correlation was obtained for the Roche RUO-MPLC and Abbott ASR-Q (R(2) = 0.84 and R(2) = 0.93, respectively), with better agreement for the Abbott ASR-Q. However, correlation (R(2) = 0.79) and agreement were poor for Roche ASR-HP, with bias relative to concentration and genotype. Roche ASR-HP underestimated HCV RNA for genotypes 3 and 4 as much as 2.19 log(10) IU/ml. Our study demonstrates that Roche RUO-MPLC and Abbott ASR-Q provided acceptable results and agreed sufficiently with the COBAS Amplicor HCV Monitor v2.0.
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.