Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22712766›Full record

ArticleClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2013

Genotyping of clinically relevant human adenoviruses by array-in-well hybridization assay.

M Ylihärsilä, E Harju, R Arppe, L Hattara, J Hölsä, P Saviranta, T Soukka, M Waris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

M YlihärsiläDepartment of Virology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. minna.yliharsila@utu.fi
E Harju
R Arppe
L Hattara
J Hölsä
P Saviranta
T Soukka
M Waris

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A robust oligonucleotide array-in-well hybridization assay using novel up-converting phosphor reporter technology was applied for genotyping clinically relevant human adenovirus types. A total of 231 adenovirus-positive respiratory, ocular swab, stool and other specimens from 219 patients collected between April 2010 and April 2011 were included in the study. After a real-time PCR amplification targeting the adenovirus hexon gene, the array-in-well assay identified the presence of B03 (n = 122; 57.5% of patients), E04 (29; 13.7%), C02 (21; 9.9%), D37 (14; 6.6%), C01 (12; 5.7%), C05 (5; 2.4%), D19 (4; 1.9%), C06 (2; 0.9%), D08 (1; 0.5%), A31 (1; 0.5%) and F41 (1; 0.5%) genotypes among the clinical sample panel. The typing result was obtained for all specimens that could be amplified (n = 223; 97%), and specificity of the typing was confirmed by sequencing specimens representing each of the different genotypes. No hybridization signal was obtained in adenovirus-negative specimens or specimens with other viruses (n = 30). The array-in-well hybridization assay has great potential as a rapid and multiplex platform for the typing of clinically relevant human adenovirus genotypes in different specimen types.

Indexed as

GenotypeGenotyping TechniquesNucleic Acid HybridizationAdenoviruses, HumanAdenovirus Infections, HumanAdolescentAdultAgedCapsid ProteinsCell LineChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornCapsid Proteinshexon capsid protein, Adenovirus

Identifiers

PMID22712766
PMCPMC7129513

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.