ArticlePloS one2016
Using NS5B Sequencing for Hepatitis C Virus Genotyping Reveals Discordances with Commercial Platforms.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a Genotype-Independent Hepatitis C Virus Near-Whole Genome Sequencing Assay.Viruses · 2021Article
- HCV Diagnosis and Sequencing Using Dried Blood Spots from Patients in Kinshasa (DRC): A Tool to Achieve WHO 2030 Targets.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Challenges to Differentiate Hepatitis C Genotype 1 and 6: Results from A Field-Study in Cambodia.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2020Article
- Development of a Method for Screening and Genotyping of HCV 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Genotypes.ACS omega · 2020Article
- Comparison of Sanger sequencing for hepatitis C virus genotyping with a commercial line probe assay in a tertiary hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Reliable resolution of ambiguous hepatitis C virus genotype 1 results with the Abbott HCV Genotype Plus RUO assay.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- HCV Detection, Discrimination, and Genotyping Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Pipeline for specific subtype amplification and drug resistance detection in hepatitis C virus.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Performance of 6 HCV genotyping 9G test for HCV genotyping in clinical samples.Virology journal · 2018Article
- Relapse or reinfection after failing hepatitis C direct acting antiviral treatment: Unravelled by phylogenetic analysis.PloS one · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the cobas® GT hepatitis C virus genotyping assay in G1-6 viruses including low viral loads and LiPA failures.PloS one · 2018Article
- Genotype and genetic variation of HCV infections with low-risk factors in Putian coastal regions, China.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Article
- Comparison of Three Different Hepatitis C Virus Genotyping Methods: 5'NCR PCR-RFLP, Core Type-Specific PCR, and NS5b Sequencing in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2017Article
- Article
- The cobas® HCV GT is a new tool that accurately identifies Hepatitis C virus genotypes for clinical practice.PloS one · 2017Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing: a Diagnostic One-Stop Shop for Hepatitis C?Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the correct assignment of HCV genotypes by three commercial methods-Trugene HCV genotyping kit (Siemens), VERSANT HCV Genotype 2.0 assay (Siemens), and Real-Time HCV genotype II (Abbott)-compared to NS5B sequencing. We studied 327 clinical samples that carried representative HCV genotypes of the most frequent geno/subtypes in Spain. After commercial genotyping, the sequencing of a 367 bp fragment in the NS5B gene was used to assign genotypes. Major discrepancies were defined, e.g. differences in the assigned genotype by one of the three methods and NS5B sequencing, including misclassification of subtypes 1a and 1b. Minor discrepancies were considered when differences at subtype levels, other than 1a and 1b, were observed. The overall discordance with the reference method was 34% for Trugene and 15% for VERSANT HCV2.0. The Abbott assay correctly identified all 1a and 1b subtypes, but did not subtype all the 2, 3, 4 and 5 (34%) genotypes. Major discordances were found in 16% of cases for Trugene HCV, and the majority were 1b- to 1a-related discordances; major discordances were found for VERSANT HCV 2.0 in 6% of cases, which were all but one 1b to 1a cases. These results indicated that the Trugene assay especially, and to a lesser extent, Versant HCV 2.0, can fail to differentiate HCV subtypes 1a and 1b, and lead to critical errors in clinical practice for correctly using directly acting antiviral agents.
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.