ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008
Assessment of cryptodiag for diagnosis of cryptosporidiosis and genotyping Cryptosporidium species.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Looking for Cryptosporidium: the application of advances in detection and diagnosis.Trends in parasitology · 2013Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of a new commercial PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Cryptodiag; Bio Advance, France) for the diagnosis of cryptosporidiosis and the identification of Cryptosporidium hominis and C. parvum from stool samples was examined. This test is based on PCR amplification of Cryptosporidium DNA extracted from stools, followed by an ELISA based on hybridization with Cryptosporidium sp.-, C. hominis-, or C. parvum-specific probes. In spiking experiments, approximately five oocysts were detected either in water or in stool suspensions while assessing for the efficient removal of stool PCR inhibitors. No cross-reactivity was observed in the detection of C. parvum and C. hominis using the respective specific probes. Thirty-three fecal samples from patients with microscopically proven cryptosporidiosis and 118 from patients with or without other digestive protozoan infections were tested by Cryptodiag, blinded to the results of microscopy. Compared to microscopy, the sensitivity of Cryptodiag was 97.0% (32/33) and 100% (33/33), including the gray zone, and specificity was 98.3% (116/118) and 96.6% (114/118), including the gray zone. Among 34 positive results, Cryptodiag identified 19 due to C. hominis, 8 due to C. parvum, and 7 due to Cryptosporidium spp. Genotyping by Cryptodiag agreed with reference typing methods in 85% of cases of C. parvum or C. hominis infections. Cryptodiag proved to be reliable and sensitive for the diagnosis of cryptosporidiosis. The use of specific probes allowed the identification of C. hominis and C. parvum, i.e., the two main species responsible for human cryptosporidiosis, and rapidly provided information on the possible source of infection.
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.