Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24648558›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Improved detection limit in rapid detection of human enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 by a novel reverse transcription-isothermal multiple-self-matching-initiated amplification assay.

Xiong Ding, Kai Nie, Lei Shi, Yong Zhang, Li Guan, Dan Zhang, Shunxiang Qi, Xuejun Ma

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiong DingSchool of Light Industry and Food Sciences, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China Key Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China.
Kai NieKey Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China.
Lei ShiSchool of Light Industry and Food Sciences, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China.
Yong ZhangKey Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China.
Li GuanKey Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China.
Dan ZhangKey Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China.
Shunxiang QiInstitute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Hebei Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China hbcdc999@126.com maxj@ivdc.chinacdc.cn.
Xuejun MaKey Laboratory for Medical Virology, Ministry of Health, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changping district, Beijing, China hbcdc999@126.com maxj@ivdc.chinacdc.cn.
National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention · CNSouth China University of Technology · CNCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid detection of human enterovirus 71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CVA16) is important in the early phase of hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD). In this study, we developed and evaluated a novel reverse transcription-isothermal multiple-self-matching-initiated amplification (RT-IMSA) assay for the rapid detection of EV71 and CVA16 by use of reverse transcriptase, together with a strand displacement DNA polymerase. Real-time RT-IMSA assays using a turbidimeter and visual RT-IMSA assays to detect EV71 and CVA16 were established and completed in 1 h, and the reported corresponding real-time reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assays targeting the same regions of the VP1 gene were adopted as parallel tests. Through testing VP1 RNAs transcribed in vitro, the real-time RT-IMSA assays exhibited better linearity of quantification, with R(2) values of 0.952 (for EV71) and 0.967 (for CVA16), than the real-time RT-LAMP assays, which had R(2) values of 0.803 (for EV71) and 0.904 (for CVA16). Additionally, the detection limits of the real-time RT-IMSA assays (approximately 937 for EV71 and 67 for CVA16 copies/reaction) were higher than those of real-time RT-LAMP assays (approximately 3,266 for EV71 and 430 for CVA16 copies/reaction), and similar results were observed in the visual RT-IMSA assays. The new approaches also possess high specificities for the corresponding targets, with no cross-reactivity observed. In clinical assessment, compared to commercial reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) kits, the diagnostic sensitivities of the real-time RT-IMSA assays (96.4% for EV71 and 94.6% for CVA16) were higher than those of the real-time RT-LAMP assays (91.1% for EV71 and 90.8% for CVA16). The visual RT-IMSA assays also exhibited the same results. In conclusion, this proof-of-concept study suggests that the novel RT-IMSA assay is superior to the RT-LAMP assay in terms of detection limit and has the potential to rapidly detect EV71 and CVA16 viruses.

Indexed as

Limit of DetectionChildChild, PreschoolEnterovirusEnterovirus A, HumanFemaleHand, Foot and Mouth DiseaseHumansInfantMaleMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReverse TranscriptionTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24648558
PMCPMC4042787
OpenAlexW2065157253

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.