ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Evaluation of the Virclia
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of vector-borne pathogens in outdoor workers from southern Italy and associated occupational risk factors.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Predictive Factors of the Responses to Treatment ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- High Seroprevalence ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the VircliaJournal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMycoplasma pneumoniae is considered an important etiologic agent of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in outpatients. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a quick automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for M. pneumoniae in a population-based prospective study of CAP.
methodsA total of 137 outpatients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. Acute- and convalescent phase sera were analyzed for IgG and IgM to M. pneumoniae with both CLIA (VirClia
resultsThirty-eight patients were diagnosed with pneumonia by M. pneumoniae. ROC curves for IgG and IgM of convalescent and acute phase (C/A) quotients by the CLIA and ELISA assays were comparable. Specifically, for the CLIA, the best C/A quotient for IgG was 2.617 (sensitivity, 94.9%; specificity, 99.9%), and for IgM 1.400 (sensitivity, 65.8%; specificity, 100%). Regarding the acute phase, the best diagnostic accuracy for the CLIA was obtained with an IgG index of 1.120 (sensitivity, 89.5%; specificity, 73.7%). The CLIA was very simple to execute and required a minimum sample handling.
conclusionThe accuracy of the Virclia
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.