Trial reportPloS one2019
A novel point-of-care oral anti-HCV assay: Is it reliable for screening hepatitis C virus infection in the era of direct-acting antivirals?
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A hook-effect-free homogeneous light-initiated chemiluminescence assay: is it reliable for screening and the quantification of the hepatitis B surface antigen?Annals of translational medicine · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advance in the direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) offers the potentials to eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) worldwide and makes universal screening more urgent. A point-of-care (POC) oral anti-HCV assay, the Fortune assay, was developed and its performance was evaluated. Individuals with or without HCV infection were recruited in three Centers. Paired oral and serum samples were tested using the Fortune and InTec anti-HCV assays. The Kehua serum anti-HCV assay served as a supplemental test to verify the discordant results. Some oral samples were also tested using the OraQuick anti-HCV assay. Furthermore, the Fortune assay results were compared with the documented RNA results. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the Fortune assay was 93.11%, 98.48%, and 96.58%, respectively (n = 1,022). Consistency between the Fortune and OraQuick assays was 96.35% (264/274); the Fortune assay detected additional 8 positive oral samples missed by the OraQuick assay. The Fortune assay demonstrated a 97.46% (115/118) positivity among the viremic patients. Furthermore, its sensitivity was HCV genotype independent. In conclusion, the Fortune assay was highly specific and accurate. It had comparable sensitivity as the serum assays for the diagnosis of active HCV infection. It provides a completely non-invasive and reliable tool for HCV screening in the DAA era.
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.