ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Comparison of three Roche hepatitis B virus viral load assay formats.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide (TAF) and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) Followed by TAF in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients of East Asian Ethnicity Following 5 Years of Treatment.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Trial
- Long-term lamivudine therapy in chronic hepatitis B.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2016Trial
- Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Reliable Quantification ofBiosensors · 2023Article
- Occult hepatitis B virus infection in a Kenyan cohort of HIV infected anti-retroviral therapy naïve adults.PloS one · 2021Article
- Bimodal distribution and set point HBV DNA viral loads in chronic infection: retrospective analysis of cohorts from the UK and South Africa.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
- Impact of nucleic acid extraction platforms on hepatitis virus genome detection.Journal of virological methods · 2019Article
- Does Size Matter? Comparison of Extraction Yields for Different-Sized DNA Fragments by Seven Different Routine and Four New Circulating Cell-Free Extraction Methods.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Ultrasensitive detection of serum hepatitis B virus by coupling ultrafiltration DNA extraction with real-time PCR.PloS one · 2017Article
- Diagnosis of 25 genotypes of human papillomaviruses for their physical statuses in cervical precancerous/cancerous lesions: a comparison of E2/E6E7 ratio-based vs. multiple E1-L1/E6E7 ratio-based detection techniques.Journal of translational medicine · 2014Article
- Introduction of an automated system for the diagnosis and quantification of hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses.The open virology journal · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two FDA-approved (in vitro diagnostic [IVD]) hepatitis B virus (HBV) viral load assays, the manual Cobas TaqMan HBV Test for use with the High Pure System (HP) and the automated Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HBV Test v2.0 (CAP/CTM), were compared to a modified (not FDA-approved) version of the HP assay by automating the DNA extraction using the Total Nucleic Acid Isolation (TNAI) kit on the Cobas AmpliPrep. On average, CAP/CTM measurements were 0.08 log IU/ml higher than HP results (n = 206), and TNAI results were 0.17 log IU/ml higher than HP results (n = 166). The limit of detection (LOD), as determined by probit analysis using dilutions of the 2nd HBV international standard, was 10.2 IU/ml for CAP/CTM. The data sets for HP and TNAI were insufficient for probit analysis; however, there was 100% detection at ≥ 5 or ≥ 10 IU/ml for TNAI and HP, respectively. Linearity was demonstrated between 60 and 2,000,000 IU/ml, with slopes between 0.95 and 0.99 and R(2) values of >0.99 for all assays. Total precision (log percent coefficient of variance [CV]) was between 0.8% and 2.1% at 4.3 log IU/ml and between 1.4% and 4.9% at 2.3 log IU/ml. Correlation of samples, reproducibility, linearity, and LOD were acceptable and similar in all assays. The CAP/CTM assay and, to a lesser extent, the TNAI assay reduced hands-on time due to automation. There were no instances of contamination detected in negative samples during the course of the study, despite testing several samples up to 9.6 log IU/ml. The incidence of false-positive negative controls in HP and CAP/CTM clinical testing was <0.5% over 6 to 7 months of testing.
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.