ArticleArchives of virology2016
Evaluation of a smartphone-based rapid fluorescent diagnostic system for H9N2 virus in specific-pathogen-free chickens.
Article in Archives of virology, 2016. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hybrid Metasurface for On-Chip Enrichment and Quantification of Biological Samples.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Development of a Rapid Fluorescent Diagnostic System to Detect Subtype H9 Influenza A Virus in Chicken Feces.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Avian Influenza in Wild Birds and Poultry: Dissemination Pathways, Monitoring Methods, and Virus Ecology.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Herpesviruses in Reptiles.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Genetic Characterization of Avian Influenza A (H11N9) Virus Isolated from Mandarin Ducks in South Korea in 2018.Viruses · 2020Article
- Review
- Improvement of a rapid diagnostic application of monoclonal antibodies against avian influenza H7 subtype virus using Europium nanoparticles.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated interspecies transmission of H9N2 virus from poultry to humans and human infections transmitted via aerosols highlight the need for a highly sensitive, rapid diagnostic system for the detection of this virus. However, no such test exhibiting high performance has been developed. In this study, the performance of a smartphone-based rapid fluorescent diagnostic system (SRFDS) was optimized for the diagnosis of an H9N2-virus-infected animal. To suppress the nonspecific reactivity of the bioconjugate in oropharyngeal (OP) and cloacal (CL) samples derived from chickens, different blocking reagents were tested, and a mixture of casein and sucrose was found to be optimal. To assess the performance of SRFDS, OP and CL samples were obtained from specific-pathogen-free chickens and used for comparison of this method with real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) at time points of three, five, and seven days postinfection (dpi). The limit of detection of SRFDS was found to be 7.5 PFU/mL, which was 138-fold higher than that of a conventional colloidal-gold-based avian influenza rapid diagnostic test. In the animal study, the presence of viral antigen was monitored with SRFDS, and the relative sensitivity (relative to rRT-PCR results) was 94.44 % (17/18) and 95.23 % (20/21) in OP and CL specimens, respectively. The specificity of SRFDS was 100 %. These results imply that the diagnostic performance of SRFDS might be comparable to that of rRT-PCR for diagnosis of H9N2 in chickens and that this test can be used as a highly sensitive rapid diagnostic method in field studies on broiler poultry and wild birds.
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.