ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2014
Comparison of two multiplex PCR assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avian Metapneumovirus: Virology, Epidemiology, and Insights from a Comparative Analysis with Human Metapneumovirus-A Review.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Development of a diagnostic assay by three-tube multiplex real-time PCR for simultaneous detection of nine microorganisms causing acute respiratory infections.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparison of three multiplex PCR assays for detection of respiratory viruses: Anyplex II RV16, AdvanSure RV, and Real-Q RV.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Detection of 12 respiratory viruses by duplex real time PCR assays in respiratory samples.Molecular and cellular probes · 2015Article
- A multiplex PCR assay for the detection of five influenza viruses using a dual priming oligonucleotide system.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Detection of respiratory viruses in sputum from adults by use of automated multiplex PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRespiratory viruses are the main causes of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases. Rapid and accurate detection of respiratory viruses is crucial for appropriate patient treatment and prevention of endemic spread.
objectivesWe compared two multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the detection of respiratory viral pathogens.
methodsA total of 245 respiratory specimens (229 sputum samples, 14 bronchoalveolar lavage samples, 6 nasal swabs, 3 throat swabs, 7 unknown) were analyzed using two multiplex assays: One-step RV real-time PCR (BioSewoom, Seoul, Korea) and Seeplex RV 12 Detection kit (Seegene, Seoul, Korea). The results were further confirmed using sequencing as a reference.
resultsAmong 245 samples (265 identifications including co-infections), the identification of respiratory viruses was 44.9% (119/265), 44.2% (117/265) and 45.3% (120/265) by One-step RV assay, Seeplex RV assay and sequencing, respectively. The concordance rate between One-step RV assay and sequencing was 95.5% (253/265), and that between Seeplex RV assay and sequencing was 89.8% (238/265) (P = 0.0189). The sensitivities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 94.1% [95% confidential interval (CI), 88.3%-97.6%] and 83.3% (95% CI, 75.4%-89.5%), respectively (P = 0.0002). The specificities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.2%-98.9%) and 95.2% (95% CI, 90.3%-98.0%), respectively.
conclusionAlthough the performances of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were overall comparable, One-step RV assay showed better sensitivity and concordance with sequencing. One-step RV assay can be a useful option for respiratory virus testing in clinical laboratories.
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.