Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29386264›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2018

Diagnostic Testing for Zika Virus: a Postoutbreak Update.

Elitza S Theel, D Jane Hata

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
12.4field-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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. An update on the aspects of Zika virus infection on male reproductive system.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elitza S TheelDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA theel.elitza@mayo.edu.
D Jane HataLaboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the emergence and dissemination of Zika virus (ZIKV) in late 2015, our understanding of the biology, transmission, clinical disease, and potential sequelae associated with infection has markedly expanded. Over the past 2 years, the number of diagnostic assays for ZIKV has increased from none in 2015 to 5 serological assays and 14 molecular assays in 2017, all with emergency use authorization granted through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Here we provide an update on ZIKV, addressing what we have collectively learned since the outbreak began, including a summary of currently available diagnostic assays for this virus.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAntibodies, ViralFemaleHumansPregnancyReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSerologic TestsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationZika VirusZika Virus InfectionAntibodies, ViralRNA, Viraldiagnostic assaysRT-PCRserologyZika virus

Identifiers

PMID29386264
PMCPMC5869840
OpenAlexW2790200468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.