ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2017
Clinical validation of 3 commercial real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus from upper respiratory tract specimens.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory samples for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021Pooled it
- What Have We Learned About Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Emergence in Humans? A Systematic Literature Review.Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) · 2019Pooled it
- Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) Virus-Pathophysiological Axis and the Current Treatment Strategies.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2021Review
- Demographic Variations of MERS-CoV Infection among Suspected and Confirmed Cases: An Epidemiological Analysis of Laboratory-Based Data from Riyadh Regional Laboratory.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- An updated roadmap for MERS-CoV research and product development: focus on diagnostics.BMJ global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since discovery of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), a novel betacoronavirus first isolated and characterized in 2012, MERS-CoV real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assays represent one of the most rapidly expanding commercial tests. However, in the absence of extensive evaluations of these assays on positive clinical material of different sources, evaluating their diagnostic effectiveness remains challenging. We describe the diagnostic performance evaluation of 3 common commercial MERS-CoV rRT-PCR assays on a large panel (n = 234) of upper respiratory tract specimens collected during an outbreak episode in Saudi Arabia. Assays were compared to the RealStar® MERS-CoV RT-PCR (Alton Diagnostics, Hamburg, Germany) assay as the gold standard. Results showed i) the TIB MolBiol® LightMix UpE and Orf1a assays (TIB MolBiol, Berlin, Germany) to be the most sensitive, followed by ii) the Anyplex™ Seegene MERS-CoV assay (Seegene, Seoul, Korea), and finally iii) the PrimerDesign™ Genesig® HCoV_2012 assay (PrimerDesign, England, United Kingdom). We also evaluate a modified protocol for the PrimerDesign™ Genesig® HCoV_2012 assay.
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.