ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Development of an immunochromatographic assay kit using fluorescent silica nanoparticles for rapid diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Evaluation of Fluorescence Immunochromatography for Rapid and Sensitive Detection of ThermophilicFood safety (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Development of a Rapid Fluorescent Diagnostic System to Detect Subtype H9 Influenza A Virus in Chicken Feces.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Methodological approaches for monitoring opportunistic pathogens in premise plumbing: A review.Water research · 2017Review
- A DNA dot hybridization model for molecular diagnosis of parasitic keratitis.Molecular vision · 2017Article
- Evaluation of a smartphone-based rapid fluorescent diagnostic system for H9N2 virus in specific-pathogen-free chickens.Archives of virology · 2016Article
- A Fluorescence Immunochromatographic Assay Using Europium (III) Chelate Microparticles for Rapid, Quantitative and Sensitive Detection of Creatine Kinase MB.Journal of fluorescence · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed an immunochromatographic assay kit that uses fluorescent silica nanoparticles bound to anti-Acanthamoeba antibodies (fluorescent immunochromatographic assay [FICGA]) and evaluated its efficacy for the detection of Acanthamoeba and diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). The sensitivity of the FICGA kit was evaluated using samples of Acanthamoeba trophozoites and cysts diluted to various concentrations. A conventional immunochromatographic assay kit with latex labels (LICGA) was also evaluated to determine its sensitivity in detecting Acanthamoeba trophozoites. To check for cross-reactivity, the FICGA was performed by using samples of other common causative pathogens of infectious keratitis, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Candida albicans. Corneal scrapings from patients with suspected AK were tested with the FICGA kit to detect the presence of Acanthamoeba, and the results were compared with those of real-time PCR. The FICGA kit detected organisms at concentrations as low as 5 trophozoites or 40 cysts per sample. There were no cross-reactivities with other pathogens. The FICGA was approximately 20 times more sensitive than the LICGA for the detection of Acanthamoeba trophozoites. The FICGA kit yielded positive results for all 10 patients, which corresponded well with the real-time PCR results. The FICGA kit demonstrated high sensitivity for the detection of Acanthamoeba and may be useful for the diagnosis of AK.
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.