ArticleJournal of virological methods2017
Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST v2 Assay for Respiratory Viral Infections.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- Validation of the Seegene RV15 multiplex PCR for the detection of influenza A subtypes and influenza B lineages during national influenza surveillance in hospitalized adults.Journal of medical microbiology · 2020Article
- A complete protocol for whole-genome sequencing of virus from clinical samples: Application to coronavirus OC43.Virology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely identification of respiratory virus infection is essential to mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use and to implement appropriate treatment and/or infection control procedures. As such, multiplexed PCR assays have become standard in many virology laboratories.
objectivesTo compare the Seeplex RV15 (test of record) with two newer generation multiplex assays, the Anyplex II RV16 and the xTAG respiratory virus panels. STUDY
designTwo hundred and three retrospective and 36 prospective respiratory samples were tested by all three assays. Samples were deemed to be positive if they tested positive for a virus by at least two of the three respective assays. Negative samples also had to test negative by at least two of the three assays. Inconclusive samples were those that showed band signal intensity between 0 and 100 on the RV15, but had not been previously tested on the RV16 or xTAG. RESULTS AND
conclusionsOverall sensitivity and specificity of all three assays were similar (∼85% and 100%, respectively). Given each assay can identify multiple different viruses, the targets reported by one assay did not always agree with each target from another assay. Partial discordant rates were 47% and 21% for positive and negative samples, respectively. These higher than expected partial discordant rates may be due to primer or chemistry differences amongst the three multiplex assays.
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.