ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2014
Comparison of the Anyplex(TM) II RV16 and Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE assays for the detection of respiratory viruses.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- New insight in molecular detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.AMB Express · 2024Review
- Clinical evaluation of a panel of multiplex quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of 16 respiratory viruses associated with community-acquired pneumonia.Archives of virology · 2018Article
- Respiratory viruses among children with non-severe community-acquired pneumonia: A prospective cohort study.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2018Article
- 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
- Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Evaluation of Anyplex™ II RV16 and RB5 real-time RT-PCR compared to SeeplexJournal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2017Article
- Comparison of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel Fast v2 Assay With Anyplex II RV16 Detection Kit and AdvanSure RV Real-Time RT-PCR Assay for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- Comparison between Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Multiplex Reverse Transcription-PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Anyplex(TM) II RV16 detection kit (RV16; Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) is a multiplex real-time PCR assay based on tagging oligonucleotide cleavage extension. In this prospective study, we evaluated the RV16 assay by comparing with the Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE detection kit (RV12; Seegene), a multiplex end-point PCR kit. A total of 365 consecutive respiratory specimens were tested with both RV16 and RV12 assays in parallel and detected 140 (38.4%) and 89 (24.4%) positive cases, respectively. The positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa values for the 2 assays were 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.4-98.3%), 80.4% (95% CI, 75.3-84.6%), and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.72), respectively. The monoplex PCR and sequencing for the samples with discrepant results revealed that majority of the results were concordant with the results from RV16 assays. In conclusion, the RV16 assay produces results comparable to the RV12 assay.
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.