Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21732111›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2011

Real-time polymerase chain reaction and intraocular antibody production for the diagnosis of viral versus toxoplasmic infectious posterior uveitis.

Marie-Hélène Errera, Pablo Goldschmidt, Laurence Batellier, Sandrine Degorge, Emmanuel Héron, Laurent Laroche, José-Alain Sahel, Mark Westcott, Christine Chaumeil

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in uveitis.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Diagnostic vitrectomy for infectious uveitis.International ophthalmology clinics · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Viral anterior uveitis.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    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

9 authors.

Marie-Hélène ErreraService d'Ophtalmologie IV, Centre National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, 28 rue de Charenton, 75012, Paris, France. marie-helene.errera@orange.fr
Pablo Goldschmidt
Laurence Batellier
Sandrine Degorge
Emmanuel Héron
Laurent Laroche
José-Alain Sahel
Mark Westcott
Christine Chaumeil

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this work was to determine the diagnostic performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and to assess intraocular specific antibody secretion (Goldmann-Witmer coefficient) on samples from patients with signs of posterior uveitis presumably of infectious origin and to target the use of these two biologic tests in the diagnostic of Toxoplasma/viral Herpesviridae posterior uveitis by the consideration of clinical behavior and delay of intraocular sampling.

methodsAqueous humour and/or vitreous fluid were collected from patients suspected of having posterior uveitis of infectious origin at presentation (140 samples). The diagnosis was confirmed by quantification of antibodies with the Goldmann-Witmer coefficient (GWC) and for detection of Herpesviridae and Toxoplasma gondii genomes with RT-PCR. Forty-one patients had final diagnosis of uveitis of non-Toxoplasma/non-viral origin and 35 among them constituted the control group. The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV).

resultsWhen pre-intraocular testing indication was compared with final diagnosis, GWC was a more sensitive and specific method than RT-PCR, and was successful in detecting T. gondii, especially if the patient is immunocompetent and the testing is carried out later in the disease course, up to 15 months. For viral Herpesviridae uveitis, the sensitivity and PPV of PCR evaluation was higher than detected with GWC with respectively 46% compared with 20% for sensitivity and 85% versus 60% for PPV. In either viral retinitis or toxoplasmosis infection, RT-PCR results were positive from 24 h, although GWC was not significant until 1 week after the onset of signs. In toxoplasmosis patients, positive RT-PCR results were statistically correlated with the chorioretinitis area (more than three disc areas; p = 0.002), with the age older than 50 (p = 0.0034) and with a clinical anterior inflammation (Tyndall ≥1/2+) and panuveitis; (p = 0.0001).

conclusionsFor the diagnosis of viral or toxoplasmosis-associated intraocular inflammation, the usefulness of laboratory diagnosis tools (RT-PCR and GWC) depends on parameters other than the sensitivity of the tests. Certain patient characteristics such as the age of the patients, immune status, duration since the onset of symptoms, retinitis area, predominant site and extent of inflammation within the eye should orientate the rational for the choice of laboratory testing in analysis of intraocular fluids.

Indexed as

Real-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAdultAgedAntibodies, ProtozoanAntibodies, ViralAqueous HumorDNA, ProtozoanDNA, ViralEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEye Infections, ViralFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHerpesviridaeHerpesviridae InfectionsHumansMaleAntibodies, ProtozoanAntibodies, ViralDNA, ProtozoanDNA, Viral

Identifiers

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.