ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2015
Evaluation of the HerpeSelect Express rapid test in the detection of herpes simplex virus type 2 antibodies in patients with genital ulcer disease.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis of Herpes Simplex Virus: Laboratory and Point-of-Care Techniques.Infectious disease reports · 2021Review
- Tools for the Diagnosis of Herpes Simplex Virus 1/2: Systematic Review of Studies Published Between 2012 and 2018.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2019Review
- Topical application of phenolic compounds suppresses Propionibacterium acnes-induced inflammatory responses in mice with ear edema.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA rapid point-of-care test with high sensitivity and specificity is required in order to fulfill the need for early detection and screening of Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection among patients with genital ulcer disease (GUD), for better management and control of virus transmission.
methodsThe goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of the commercially available HerpeSelect Express rapid test in comparison with three ELISA assays: HerpeSelect ELISA, Kalon HSV-2 glycoprotein G2 assay, and monoclonal antibody blocking enzyme immunoassay, which was used as the gold standard for the detection of HSV-2 antibodies.
resultsThis study showed high sensitivity (ranging from 82.6 to 100%) and specificity (100%) of the HerpeSelect Express rapid test when compared to the three ELISA assays. The agreement between the HerpeSelect Express rapid test with the three ELISAs ranged from 93.3 to 100%.
conclusionThe HerpeSelect Express rapid test has adequate sensitivity and specificity for confirming HSV-2 infection in patients with GUD, indicating its suitability for epidemiological studies.
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.