ArticleVirology journal2018
Performance of 6 HCV genotyping 9G test for HCV genotyping in clinical samples.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatitis C Diagnosis: Simplified Solutions, Predictive Barriers, and Future Promises.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- HCV Detection, Discrimination, and Genotyping Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA treatment of HCV infection depends on the genotype and sub-genotype. Therefore, accurate HCV genotyping is critical for selecting the appropriate treatment regimen.
methodThis study included 280 plasma samples to evaluate the performance of 6 HCV Genotyping 9G test. The performance of 6 HCV Genotyping 9G test for accurate detection of HCV 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 6 genotypes was evaluated by comparing it with LiPA 2.0 assay and sequencing.
results6 HCV Genotyping 9G test and LiPA 2.0 assay demonstrated 83.9% (n = 235) agreement. 39/45 samples that showed discrepant results between the two tests were analyzed by sequencing. Sequencing genotyped 39 discrepant samples as 0 (HCV 1a), 24 (HCV 1b), 1 (HCV 6f), 12 (HCV 6i), and 2 (HCV-negative). Results of 6 HCV Genotyping 9G test were very similar to the sequencing as it detected 1, 23, 1, 12, and 2 samples as HCV 1a, 1b, 3 & 6a or 6f, 6i or 6n, and negative, respectively. However, LiPA 2.0 assay showed complete disagreement with sequencing, as it did not detect any of these 39 samples correctly. These results indicate that LiPA 2.0 assay has limitations in identifying HCV genotypes 1b, and 6. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 6 HCV Genotyping 9G test were 99.5, 98.8, 99.5, and 98.8%, respectively. It is important to note that HCV Genotyping 9G test showed 98.3 and 100% sensitivity for HCV 1b and 6 genotyping, respectively. However, LiPA 2.0 assay demonstrated 57.9 and 71.7% sensitivity for these genotypes.
conclusions6 HCV Genotyping 9G test identifies HCV 1a, 1b, 2, 3, and 6 with good agreement with sequencing. Hence, 6 HCV Genotyping 9G test has a high clinical value because it can provide critical information to physicians and assist them to use the correct drug for efficient hepatitis C treatment.
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.