ArticlePloS one2019
Comparative performance evaluation of four commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of the diarrhoea-causing protozoa Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvement of the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa using a multiplex qPCR strategy compared to classical microscopy: a prospective study on 3,500 stool samples over 3 years.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of four diagnostic techniques forQatar medical journal · 2025Article
- Metagenomic detection of protozoan parasites on leafy greens aided by a rapid and efficient DNA extraction protocol.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development, Optimisation and Validation of a Novel Multiplex Real-Time PCR Method for the Simultaneous Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Commercial Real-Time PCR Assay for the Simultaneous Detection ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Multicentric Evaluation of SeeGene Allplex Real-Time PCR Assays Targeting 28 Bacterial, Microsporidal and Parasitic Nucleic Acid Sequences in Human Stool Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- "Stranger things" in the gut: uncommon items in gastrointestinal specimens.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022Review
- Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of AllplexParasite (Paris, France) · 2022Article
- Commercial Simplex and Multiplex PCR Assays for the Detection of Intestinal ParasitesMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Verification of analytical bacterial spectrum of QIAstat-Dx® GI V2 and Novodiag® Bacterial GE+ V2-0 diagnostic panels.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Comparison of Three Real-Time PCR Assays Targeting the SSU rRNA Gene, the COWP Gene and the DnaJ-Like Protein Gene for the Diagnosis ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- Comparative Performance of Eight PCR Methods to DetectPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Direct detection of Strongyloides infection via molecular and antigen detection methods.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of the AllplexMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Antigen-Based Diagnosis of Human Giardiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of parasitologyReview
- Molecular diagnosis of infectious parasites in the post-COVID-19 era.Tropical parasitologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiplex molecular panels are relentlessly replacing conventional methods for the detection of enteric pathogens from stool samples in clinical and research laboratories. Here we evaluated four commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica.
methodsThe diagnostic performance of the Gastroenteritis/Parasite Panel I (Diagenode), the RIDAGENE Parasitic Stool Panel (R-Biopharm), the Allplex Gastrointestinal Parasite Panel 4 (Seegene) and the FTD Stool Parasites (Fast Track) real-time PCR methods was assessed against a reference panel of 126 well-characterized DNA samples including Cryptosporidium hominis (n = 29), Cryptosporidium parvum (n = 3), Giardia duodenalis (n = 47), Entamoeba histolytica (n = 3), other parasite species (n = 20), and apparently healthy subjects (n = 24). PRINCIPAL
findingsObtained diagnostic sensitivities ranged from 53-88% for Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, and from 68-100% for G. duodenalis. The R-Biopharm method achieved the best performance for the detection of Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum both in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (87.5%) and detection limit (a 100-fold increase compared to other tests). The Fast Track method was particularly suited for the detection of G. duodenalis, achieving a 100% sensitivity and a detection limit at least 10-fold superior. Detection of E. histolytica was similarly achieved by all compared methods except Diagenode.
conclusionsDiagnostic performance varied largely depending on the method used and the targeted pathogen species. Factors including test sensitivity/specificity, cost, patient population surveyed, laboratory workflow, and diagnostic algorithm should be carefully considered when choosing the most appropriate multiplex PCR platform.
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.