ReviewToxins2018
Venomous Arachnid Diagnostic Assays, Lessons from Past Attempts.
Review in Toxins, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human antibodies neutralizing the alpha-latrotoxin of the European black widow.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Modern venomics-Current insights, novel methods, and future perspectives in biological and applied animal venom research.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Antibodies as Biosensors' Key Components: State-of-the-Art in Russia 2020-2021.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Review
- Discovery of a Recombinant Human Monoclonal Immunoglobulin G Antibody Against α-Latrotoxin From the Mediterranean Black Widow Spider (Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic tests for arachnid accidents remain unavailable for patients and clinicians. Together with snakes, these accidents are still a global medical concern, and are recognized as neglected tropical issues. Due to arachnid toxins' fast mechanism of action, quick detection and quantification of venom is required to accelerate treatment decisions, rationalize therapy, and reduce costs and patient risks. This review aims to understand the current limitations for arachnid venom identification and quantification in biological samples. We benchmarked the already existing initiatives regarding test requirements (sample or biomarkers of choice), performances (time, detection limit, sensitivity and specificity) and their validation (on animal models or on samples from envenomed humans). Our analysis outlines unmet needs for improving diagnosis and consequently treatment of arachnid accidents. Hence, based on lessons from past attempts, we propose a road map for raising best practice guidelines, leading to recommendations for future progress in the development of arachnid diagnostic assays.
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.