Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27920176›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2016

Laboratory Diagnosis of Chikungunya Virus Infections and Commercial Sources for Diagnostic Assays.

Barbara W Johnson, Brandy J Russell, Christin H Goodman

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Travel-Related Challenges of Chikungunya Virus and Vaccination Options.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara W JohnsonDiagnostic and Reference Laboratory, Arboviral Diseases Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Brandy J RussellDiagnostic and Reference Laboratory, Arboviral Diseases Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Christin H GoodmanDiagnostic and Reference Laboratory, Arboviral Diseases Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of chikungunya virus (CHIKV) or viral RNA is the primary laboratory test used to diagnose infection in serum collected <6 days after onset of illness. Two real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) kits are available commercially, but validity data are limited. There are 2 commercial sources of inactivated positive-control CHIKV RNA to be used with purchased primers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides viral RNA-positive controls and primer and probe nucleotide sequences for real-time RT-PCR testing. Detection of CHIKV-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody becomes a sensitive test for samples collected approximately >5 days of illness. Commercially available CHIKV IgM-detection assays include lateral flow rapid tests, IgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (MAC-ELISAs), and indirect immunofluorescence tests. Nine commercial CHIKV IgM detection assays were evaluated at 3 reference laboratories to provide guidance to public health diagnostic laboratories on their performance parameters. Sensitivity of the rapid tests and 3 MAC-ELISAs was <50%, and thus these assays are not recommended. Three of the MAC-ELISA kits and 1 indirect immunofluorescence kit had comparable performance to the reference assays. In summary, commercial assays with performance comparable to reference assays are available for molecular and serological diagnosis of CHIKV infections.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesReagent Kits, DiagnosticAntibodies, ViralChikungunya FeverChikungunya virusEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFluorescent Antibody Technique, IndirectFluoroimmunoassayHumansImmunoglobulin MReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin MReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Viralarbovirus diagnostic testingChikungunya virusIgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA)real-time RT-PCR

Identifiers

PMID27920176
PMCPMC5657184
OpenAlexW2559925268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.