ArticleVirology journal2018
Comparison of two different combined test strips with fluorescent microspheres or colored microspheres as tracers for rotavirus and adenovirus detection.
Article in Virology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Indirect ELISA and a Microsphere Detection Test Strip for the Detection of Spirometra mansoni.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Nanoparticle-Based Immunoassay for Rotavirus Detection: A Suitable Alternative to ELISA and PCR in Low-Income Setting.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Ridaquick Rotavirus/Adenovirus Immuno-Chromatographic Assay in Real-Life Situation.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Rapid detection of avian leukosis virus using a fluorescent microsphere immunochromatographic test strip assay.Poultry science · 2019Article
- Comparison of the detection performance of two different one-step-combined test strips with fluorescent microspheres or colored microspheres as tracers for influenza A and B viruses.Virology journal · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRotavirus (RV) and enteric adenovirus (AdV) mainly cause infantile infectious gastroenteritis. Several separate test methods for the detection of RV or AdV are currently available, but few tests are able to simultaneously detect both RV and AdV viruses, especially in primary medical institutions.
methodsThe present study was mainly designed to compare the performance of two combined test strips for the detection of RV and AdV: a rotavirus-adenovirus strip with fluorescent microspheres for tracers (FMT); and the CerTest rotavirus-adenovirus blister strip with colored microspheres for tracers (CMT). To test the strips cultures of RV, AdV and from other enteric pathogens were used, in addition to 350 stool specimens from 45 symptomatic patients with gastrointestinal infections.
resultsDetection thresholds for RV and AdV cultures using serial dilutions showed that the sensitivity of FMT was significantly higher than that of CMT (both P < 0.05). Specificity evaluation demonstrated that with culture mixtures of Coxsackie (A16), ECHO (type30), and entero- (EV71) viruses there was no detection of cross reaction using the two test strips, i.e., all the results were negative. With regard to the detection of RV in 350 clinical specimens, the total coincidence rate was 92.9%, the positive coincidence rate was 98.2%, and the negative coincidence rate was 90.8%. With regard to AdV detection, the total coincidence rate was 95.4%, the positive coincidence rate was 95.2%, and the negative coincidence rate was 95.5%.
conclusionsFMT performed better than CMT with regard to the combined detection of RV and AdV.
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.