ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Evaluation of the Biofire FilmArray BioThreat-E Test (v2.5) for Rapid Identification of Ebola Virus Disease in Heat-Treated Blood Samples Obtained in Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02658331 (Clinical Evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray® BioThreat-E Test for the Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 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.
Clinical Evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray® BioThreat-E Test for the Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rapid diagnostic tests versus RT-PCR for Ebola virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022Pooled it
- Detectability of Pathogenic RNA Virus Families in Different Body Sites: A Scoping Review.Viruses · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review on Suitability of Molecular Techniques for Diagnosis and Research into Infectious Diseases of Concern in Resource-Limited Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022Review
- Providing On-Site Laboratory and Biosafety Just-In-Time Training Inside a Box-Based Laboratory during the West Africa Ebola Outbreak: Supporting Better Preparedness for Future Health Emergencies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of the BioFire Global Fever Panel for the identification of malaria, leptospirosis, chikungunya, and dengue from whole blood: a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Development and operation of the defence COVID-19 lab as a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic screening capability for UK military personnel.BMJ military health · 2022Review
- Postexposure Prophylaxis With rVSV-ZEBOV Following Exposure to a Patient With Ebola Virus Disease Relapse in the United Kingdom: An Operational, Safety, and Immunogenicity Report.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Article
- Direct Detection and Discrimination of Nucleotide Polymorphisms Using Anthraquinone Labeled DNA Probes.Frontiers in chemistry · 2020Article
- Building diagnostic systems in Sierra Leone: The role of point-of-care devices in laboratory strengthening.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Analysis of circulating non-coding RNAs in a non-invasive and cost-effective manner.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2019Article
- A Smartphone-Based Rapid Telemonitoring System for Ebola and Marburg Disease Surveillance.ACS sensors · 2019Article
- Diagnostics for filovirus detection: impact of recent outbreaks on the diagnostic landscape.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- Rapid, Safe, and Simple Manual Bedside Nucleic Acid Extraction for the Detection of Virus in Whole Blood Samples.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- The current landscape of nucleic acid tests for filovirus detection.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2018Review
- Field-deployable, quantitative, rapid identification of active Ebola virus infection in unprocessed blood.Chemical science · 2017Article
- Reducing Uncertainty for Acute Febrile Illness in Resource-Limited Settings: The Current Diagnostic Landscape.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2017Review
- Case study: design and implementation of training for scientists deploying to Ebola diagnostic field laboratories in Sierra Leone: October 2014 to February 2016.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Point-of-Care Diagnostics: Recent Developments in a Connected Age.Analytical chemistry · 2017Review
- Development, Evaluation, and Integration of a Quantitative Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Diagnostic Test for Ebola Virus on a Molecular Diagnostics Platform.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease: Past, Present, and Future.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid Ebola virus (EBOV) detection is crucial for appropriate patient management and care. The performance of the FilmArray BioThreat-E test (v2.5) using whole-blood samples was evaluated in Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom and was compared with results generated by a real-time Ebola Zaire PCR reference method. Samples were tested in diagnostic laboratories upon availability, included successive samples from individual patients, and were heat treated to facilitate EBOV inactivation prior to PCR. The BioThreat-E test had a sensitivity of 84% (confidence interval [CI], 64% to 95%) and a specificity of 89% (CI, 73% to 97%) in Sierra Leone (n = 60; 44 patients) and a sensitivity of 75% (CI, 19% to 99%) and a specificity of 100% (CI, 97% to 100%) in the United Kingdom (n = 108; 70 patients) compared to the reference real-time PCR. Statistical analysis (Fisher's exact test) indicated there was no significant difference between the methods at the 99% confidence level in either country. In 9 discrepant results (5 real-time PCR positives and BioThreat-E test negatives and 4 real-time PCR negatives and BioThreat-E test positives), the majority (n = 8) were obtained from samples with an observed or probable low viral load. The FilmArray BioThreat-E test (v2.5) therefore provides an attractive option for laboratories (either in austere field settings or in countries with an advanced technological infrastructure) which do not routinely offer an EBOV diagnostic capability.
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.