ArticlePloS one2016
Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Tube Multiple RT-PCR Assay for the Detection of 13 Common Virus Types/Subtypes Associated with Acute Respiratory Infection.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Respiratory illness virus infections with special emphasis on COVID-19.European journal of medical research · 2022Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory viruses are among the most important causes of human morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially for infants and young children. In the past years, a few commercial multiplex RT-PCR assays have been used to detect respiratory viruses in spite of the high cost. In the present study, an improved single-tube multiplex reverse transcription PCR assay for simultaneous detection of 13 respiratory viruses was evaluated and compared with a previously reported two-tube assay as the reference method using clinical nasopharyngeal aspirates samples. Of 310 prospectively tested respiratory specimens selected from children hospitalized with acute respiratory illness, 226 (72.90%, 226/310) and 214 (69.03%, 214/310) positive for one or more viruses were identified by the single-tube and the two-tube assays, respectively, with combined test results showing good concordance (Kappa value = 0.874). Individually, the single-tube assay for adenovirus (Adv), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), human rhinovirus (HRV), parainfluenza virus type 1 (PIV1), parainfluenza virus type 3 (PIV3) and parainfluenza virus type 4 (PIV4) showed the significantly superior sensitivities to those of the two-tube assay. No false positives were found. In conclusion, our results demonstrates the one-tube assay revealed significant improvements over the two-tube assay in terms of the better sensitivity, more accurate quality control, less nonspecific amplification, more cost-effective and shorter turn-around time and will be a valuable tool for routine surveillance of respiratory virus infection in China.
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.