ArticleClinical oral investigations2015
Accuracy of rapid oral HCV diagnostic test among a Saudi sample.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of tests to detect Hepatitis C antibody: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Pooled it
- A population-based screening for hepatitis C antibodies and active infection using a point-of-care test in a low prevalence area.PloS one · 2020Article
- Comparative evaluation of three rapid immunochromatographic test assays with chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay for the detection of hepatitis C virus antibody.Virusdisease · 2019Article
- Can HIV service data be used for surveillance purposes?: a case study in Guangzhou, China.BMC public health · 2018Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the OraQuick® rapid diagnostic test in the detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies in oral fluid among a Saudi population sample.
designA case-control cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 HCV-positive patients and 100 HCV-negative control subjects. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe HCV-positive patients were recruited from the Clinics of Infectious Diseases of King Abdulaziz University (KAU) Hospital, Jeddah, while the control group was collected from KAU, Faculty of Dentistry, including staff and students. The OraQuick® HCV rapid antibody test (OraSure Technologies, Inc. USA) utilized the oral fluid swab. Sensitivity and specificity for the test were calculated and correlated to the patients' viral load.
resultsOut of the 60 PCR + ve patients, 53 (88.33 %) revealed a positive OraQuick test, whereas 7 (11.67 %) patients showed negative test, revealing 88.33 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity for detection of salivary HCV antibodies. Only PCR level was valuable in predicting the outcome of OraQuick test.
conclusionUsing oral fluid for the detection of HCV antibodies could be a useful tool for epidemiological purposes and for field collection of samples in developing countries or in nonclinical settings by persons with minimal training. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Millions of pilgrims visit Saudi Arabia during every year, many of whom are from countries where HCV infection is endemic; therefore, it will be very helpful to use a noninvasive, quick, simple, specific, and sensitive method for detection of HCV antibodies using oral fluid.
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.