ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2017
Unreliability of three commercial
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- First serological evidence of Q fever in large ruminants and its associated risk factors in Punjab, Pakistan.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Identification of Immunogenic Linear B-Cell Epitopes inPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Update on prevalence and distribution pattern of tick-borne diseases among humans in India: a review.Parasitology research · 2021Review
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Potential of RecombinantMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Comparison of Different Commercially Available Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays with Immunofluorescence Test for Detection of Phase II IgG and IgM Antibodies toJournal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Article
- Diagnosis of Acute Q Fever by Detection ofJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesSeroprevalence of Q fever (QF) caused by Coxiella burnetii has been reported from different parts of India. Usually serological/molecular tests are employed for detection of infection. The present study was undertaken to verify the validity of three different QF phase II IgM ELISA kits for acute QF diagnosis by comparing with the gold standard indirect fluorescent antibody assay (IFA).
methodsFifty eight serum samples collected from 42 patients (26 patients provided acute sample only and 16 both acute and convalescent samples) which were examined by all three commercial kits, were cross-checked with QF Phase II IgM IFA for confirmation.
resultsEleven patients were positive for C. burnetii antibodies by IFA in acute and/or convalescent serum samples. Taking IFA as a reference, percentages of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for Virion-Serion/Vircell/NovaTec were 36.36, 61.29, 25.00, 73.08; 81.82, 35.48, 31.03, 84.62 and 100, 25.81, 32.35, 100 per cent, respectively. INTERPRETATION &
conclusionsThe three different ELISA kits exhibited poor agreement amongst them and unacceptable level of false positivity. IFA remains to be the only option for diagnosing acute QF. Discrepancy between the clinical findings and IFA/ELISA results needs confirmation by C. burnetii DNA detection in real-time polymerase chain reaction.
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.