ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Comparison of Three Adenovirus Quantitative PCR Assays with ATCC Reference Strains and Clinical Samples.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 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.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adenoviruses (AdV) have been associated with a variety of human diseases and are recognized as causing significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised or transplant patients. Quantification of AdV DNA in plasma is notoriously difficult due to the genetic diversity of the 71 different serotypes identified to date. There is no World Health Organization standard available to harmonize quantitative data, so results between labs vary widely. In this study, we compared a laboratory-developed multiplex PCR assay with primers and probes specific for each group (A to G) and subgroup E4 (Octaplex) to one with a single primer and probe set (modified from N. Jothikumar et al., Appl Environ Microbiol 71:3131-3136, 2005) and one utilizing bisulfite pretreatment of DNA to reduce variation prior to amplification (Genetic Signatures). Our Octaplex assay detected all low-copy-number clinical samples, while the other two assays had subsets of samples that did not amplify. The modified Jothikumar assay failed to efficiently amplify three of the high-copy-number cultured strains, while the Genetic Signatures 3base assay had a positive bias, resulting in higher copies/ml (>0.5 log
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.