Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18799708›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008

Differences between two real-time PCR-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) assays (RealTime HCV and Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan) and one signal amplification assay (Versant HCV RNA 3.0) for RNA detection and quantification.

Johannes Vermehren, Annika Kau, Barbara C Gärtner, Reinhild Göbel, Stefan Zeuzem, Christoph Sarrazin

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. KASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatitis C.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2016
    Guideline
  2. KASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatitis C.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2014
    Guideline
  3. SASLT practice guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2012
    Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. [Expert advices for evaluating clinical trials of direct-acting antiviral agents for hepatitis C].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2016
    Article
  18. Update on hepatitis B and C virus diagnosis.World journal of virology · 2015
    Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes VermehrenZentrum der Inneren Medizin, Medizinische Klinik 1, Klinikum der JW Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Annika Kau
Barbara C Gärtner
Reinhild Göbel
Stefan Zeuzem
Christoph Sarrazin
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA detection and quantification are the key diagnostic tools for the management of hepatitis C. Commercially available HCV RNA assays are calibrated to the HCV genotype 1 (gt1)-based WHO standard. Significant differences between assays have been reported. However, it is unknown which assay matches the WHO standard best, and little is known about the sensitivity and linear quantification of the assays for non-gt1 specimens. Two real-time reverse transcriptase PCR-based assays (RealTime HCV and Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas TaqMan HCV [CAP/CTM]) and one signal amplification-based assay (the Versant HCV RNA, version 3.0, branched DNA [bDNA] assay) were compared for their abilities to quantify HCV RNA in clinical specimens (n = 65) harboring HCV isolates of gt1 to g5. The mean differences in the amounts detected by RealTime HCV in comparison to those detected by the bDNA assay and CAP/CTM were -0.02 and 0.72 log(10) IU/ml HCV RNA, respectively, for gt1; -0.22 and 0.03 log(10) IU/ml HCV RNA, respectively, for gt2; -0.27 and -0.22 log(10) IU/ml HCV RNA, respectively, for gt3; -0.19 and -1.27 log(10) IU/ml HCV RNA, respectively, for gt4; and -0.03 and 0.09 log(10) IU/ml HCV RNA, respectively, for gt5. The lower limits of detection for RealTime HCV and CAP/CTM were 16.8 and 10.3 IU/ml, respectively, for the WHO standard and in the range of 4.7 to 9.0 and 3.4 to 44.4 IU/ml, respectively, for clinical specimens harboring gt1 to gt6. Direct comparison of the two assays with samples of the WHO standard (code 96/798) with high titers yielded slightly smaller amounts by RealTime HCV (-0.2 log(10) at 1,500 IU/ml and -0.3 log(10) at 25,000 IU/ml) and larger amounts by CAP/CTM (0.3 log(10) at 1,500 IU/ml and 0.2 log(10) at 25,000 IU/ml). Finally, all three tests were linear between 4.0 x 10(3) and 1.0 x 10(6) IU/ml (correlation coefficient, >or=0.99). In conclusion, the real-time PCR based assays sensitively detected all genotypes and showed comparable linearities for the quantification of HCV RNA, with the exception of gt1 and gt4. The previously reported differences in the absolute quantification of samples harboring gt1 were confirmed and may be explained by different calibrations to the WHO standard.

Indexed as

BloodGenotypeHepacivirusHumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReagent Kits, DiagnosticReproducibility of ResultsRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityViral LoadReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID18799708
PMCPMC2593291
OpenAlexW2122266988

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.