Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19195443›Full record

ReviewEnfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica2008

[Application of molecular methods in the diagnosis and epidemiological study of viral respiratory infections].

Francisco Pozo, Inmaculada Casas, Guillermo Ruiz, Ana Falcón, Pilar Pérez-Breña

Open access · greenAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francisco PozoLaboratorio de Gripe y Virus Respiratorios, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, España. pacopozo@isciii.es
Inmaculada Casas
Guillermo Ruiz
Ana Falcón
Pilar Pérez-Breña
Centro Nacional de Microbiologia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, more than two hundred viruses, belonging to six different taxonomic families, have been associated with human respiratory tract infection. The widespread incorporation of molecular methods into clinical microbiology laboratories has not only led to notable advances in the etiological diagnosis of viral respiratory infections but has also increased insight into the pathology and epidemiological profiles of the causative viruses. Because of their high sensitivity, molecular techniques markedly increase the efficiency of viral detection in respiratory specimens, particularly those that fail to propagate successfully in common cell cultures, thus allowing more rapid etiologic diagnosis. However, there are also some disadvantages in the use of these new technologies such as detection of viruses that merely colonize the respiratory tract of healthy people, or those found in the nasopharyngeal secretions of patients who have recovered from respiratory infections, due to longterm viral shedding, when the viruses are unlikely to act as pathogens. Additionally, sequencing of the amplification products allows further characterization of detected viruses, including molecular epidemiology, genotyping, or detection of antiviral resistance, to cite only a few examples.

Indexed as

Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesAdultAgedBocavirusBody FluidsChildCoronavirusGenome, ViralHumansMastadenovirusMetapneumovirusOrthomyxoviridaeParamyxovirinaePicornaviridaeRespiratory Syncytial VirusesRespiratory System

Identifiers

PMID19195443
PMCPMC7130302
OpenAlexW2028408962

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.