ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017
Comparison of Xpert Norovirus and RidaGene Norovirus assays for the detection of noroviruses in clinical fecal specimens.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the usability and performance of the Xpert Norovirus and RidaGene Norovirus assays for the detection of noroviruses in fecal specimens. Of the 186 stool specimens, 53 (28.5%) were considered true-positive for norovirus (NoV). Of the true-positive specimens, Xpert detected 53 and RidaGene detected 52. The respective sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 94.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 91.0-98.5%] for the Xpert assay, and 98.1% (95% CI, 94.4-100%) and 97.0% (95% CI, 94.1-99.9%) for the RidaGene assay. Positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs) were 88.3% and 100% for the Xpert assay, and 92.9% and 99.2% for the RidaGene assay, respectively. Based on this study, it can be concluded that there were no significant differences (p-value > 0.5) between the results of the Xpert and RidaGene Norovirus assays. We found that both assays are useful for the detection of noroviruses in clinical stool samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28063001What 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.