ArticleParasitology research2010
Comparative efficacy of conventional primer sets in detection of Cryptosporidium parvum for diagnostic use.
Article in Parasitology research, 2010. 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.
- Detection of zoonoticParasite epidemiology and control · 2024Article
- Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst viability and behaviour of the residual body during the excystation process.Parasitology research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of different previously described primer sets for Cryptosporidium parvum detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was evaluated. For this purpose, the primer sets defined by Cacciò et al. (FEMS Microbiol Lett 170(1):173-179, 1999) (tub), Widmer et al. (Appl Environ Microbiol 64(11):4477-4481, 1998) (btub) and Rochelle et al. (Appl Environ Microbiol 63:2029-2037, 1997) (cphsp), respectively, were used. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was isolated from three different sample materials: (1) from the faeces of an experimentally C. parvum-infected calf, (2) from purified C. parvum oocysts, and (3) from C. parvum-infected HCT-8 cell cultures. The DNA samples were subjected to PCR reactions with each of the three given primer sets to investigate sensitivity and suitability for routine use. The primers described by Cacciò et al. (FEMS Microbiol Lett 170(1):173-179, 1999) (TUB) were superior regarding sensitivity and specificity in terms of detection of C. parvum in faeces, in purified oocysts and also in cell culture, and may thus be applied for routine diagnostic use in common sample materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20107835What 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.