Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26202123›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015

Reevaluation of an Acanthamoeba Molecular Diagnostic Algorithm following an Atypical Case of Amoebic Keratitis.

Rachel Lau, Marlou Cunanan, Jonathan Jackson, Ibne Karim M Ali, Ann Chong-Kit, Jason Gasgas, Jinfang Tian, Filip Ralevski, Andrea K Boggild

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Rachel LauPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Marlou CunananPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Jonathan JacksonFree-Living and Intestinal Amebas Laboratory, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ibne Karim M AliFree-Living and Intestinal Amebas Laboratory, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ann Chong-KitPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Jason GasgasPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Jinfang TianPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Filip RalevskiPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Andrea K BoggildPublic Health Ontario Laboratories, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada Tropical Disease Unit, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada andrea.boggild@utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amoebic keratitis (AK) is a potentially blinding infection, the prompt diagnosis of which is essential for limiting ocular morbidity. We undertook a quality improvement initiative with respect to the molecular detection of acanthamoebae in our laboratory because of an unusual case of discordance. Nine ATCC strains of Acanthamoeba and 40 delinked, biobanked, surplus corneal scraping specimens were analyzed for the presence of acanthamoebae with four separate real-time PCR assays. The assay used by the Free-Living and Intestinal Amebas Laboratory of the CDC was considered the reference standard, and the performance characteristics of each individual assay and pairs of assays were calculated. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Of 49 included specimens, 14 (28.6%) were positive by the gold standard assay, and 35 (71.4%) were negative. The sensitivities of the individual assays ranged from 64.3% to 92.9%, compared to the gold standard, while the specificities ranged from 88.6% to 91.4%. The PPVs and NPVs ranged from 69.2% to 78.6% and from 86.1% to 96.9%, respectively. Combinations of assay pairs led to improved performance, with sensitivities ranging from 92.9% to 100% and specificities ranging from 97.1% to 100%. ATCC and clinical strains of Acanthamoeba that failed to be detected by certain individual assays included Acanthamoeba castellanii, Acanthamoeba culbertsoni, and Acanthamoeba lenticulata. For three clinical specimens, false negativity of the gold standard assay could not be excluded. Molecular diagnostic approaches, especially combinations of highly sensitive and specific assays, offer a reasonably performing, operator-independent, rapid strategy for the detection of acanthamoebae in clinical specimens and are likely to be more practical than either culture or direct microscopic detection.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAcanthamoebaAcanthamoeba KeratitisHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPredictive Value of TestsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26202123
PMCPMC4572543

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.