Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23209851›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2012

A protein microarray for the rapid screening of patients suspected of infection with various food-borne helminthiases.

Jia-Xu Chen, Mu-Xin Chen, Lin Ai, Jun-Hu Chen, Shao-Hong Chen, Yong-Nian Zhang, Yu-Chun Cai, Xing-Quan Zhu, Xiao-Nong Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Paragonimiasis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  2. An Overview ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jia-Xu ChenNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, WHO Collaborating Center for Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Filariasis, Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Mu-Xin Chen
Lin Ai
Jun-Hu Chen
Shao-Hong Chen
Yong-Nian Zhang
Yu-Chun Cai
Xing-Quan Zhu
Xiao-Nong Zhou
Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention · CNLanzhou Veterinary Research Institute · CNNational Institute for Parasitic Diseases · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFood-borne helminthiases (FBHs) have become increasingly important due to frequent occurrence and worldwide distribution. There is increasing demand for developing more sensitive, high-throughput techniques for the simultaneous detection of multiple parasitic diseases due to limitations in differential clinical diagnosis of FBHs with similar symptoms. These infections are difficult to diagnose correctly by conventional diagnostic approaches including serological approaches. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn this study, antigens obtained from 5 parasite species, namely Cysticercus cellulosae, Angiostrongylus cantonensis, Paragonimus westermani, Trichinella spiralis and Spirometra sp., were semi-purified after immunoblotting. Sera from 365 human cases of helminthiasis and 80 healthy individuals were assayed with semi-purified antigens by both a protein microarray and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The sensitivity, specificity and simplicity of each test for the end-user were evaluated. The specificity of the tests ranged from 97.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.3-98.7%) to 100.0% (95% CI: 100.0%) in the protein microarray and from 97.7% (95% CI: 96.2-99.2%) to 100.0% (95% CI: 100.0%) in ELISA. The sensitivity varied from 85.7% (95% CI: 75.1-96.3%) to 92.1% (95% CI: 83.5-100.0%) in the protein microarray, while the corresponding values for ELISA were 82.0% (95% CI: 71.4-92.6%) to 92.1% (95% CI: 83.5-100.0%). Furthermore, the Youden index spanned from 0.83 to 0.92 in the protein microarray and from 0.80 to 0.92 in ELISA. For each parasite, the Youden index from the protein microarray was often slightly higher than the one from ELISA even though the same antigen was used. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The protein microarray platform is a convenient, versatile, high-throughput method that can easily be adapted to massive FBH screening.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, HelminthClinical Laboratory TechniquesFoodborne DiseasesHelminthiasisHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansParasitologyProtein Array AnalysisSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID23209851
PMCPMC3510079
OpenAlexW1991165814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.