ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2019
Comparative Evaluation Between the RealStar
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quick versus Quantitative: Evaluation of Two Commercial Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii from Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluids.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: challenges and recent developments.Journal of biomedical science · 2023Review
- Post-COVID-19Access microbiology · 2023Article
- A New PCR-Based Assay for Testing Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Samples from Patients with SuspectedJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of the Unyvero Platform for Testing Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- A New Age in Molecular Diagnostics for Invasive Fungal Disease: Are We Ready?Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
- Fungal infections diagnosis - Past, present and future.Research in microbiologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReal-time PCR is more sensitive than microscopic examination for detecting
methodsWe used 159 samples from the lower respiratory tract (112 bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL] fluid, 37 sputum, and 10 endotracheal aspirate [ETA] samples) of non-HIV immunocompromised patients. Nested PCR and sequencing were used to resolve discordant results. The performance of the two assays was evaluated according to clinical categories (clinical
resultsThe positive and negative percent agreement values were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.4-100%) and 96.6% (95% CI, 90.9-98.9%), respectively, and kappa was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-0.99).
conclusionsThe two assays showed similar diagnostic performance and detected low
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.