ArticleFood and environmental virology2019
Field Performance of Two Methods for Detection of Poliovirus in Wastewater Samples, Mexico 2016-2017.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sampling Schemes in Poliovirus Wastewater Surveillance Studies from European Countries and Their Comparison to Other Studies: A Literature Review.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Sporadic detection of vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 using next-generation sequencing in Canadian wastewater in August of 2022.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- CaFÉ: A Sensitive, Low-Cost Filtration Method for Detecting Polioviruses and Other Enteroviruses in Residual Waters.Frontiers in environmental science · 2022Article
- Occurrence of various viruses and recent evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater systems.Journal of hazardous materials · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To enhance our ability to monitor poliovirus circulation and certify eradication, we evaluated the performance of the bag-mediated filtration system (BMFS) against the two-phase separation (TPS) method for concentrating wastewater samples for poliovirus detection. Sequential samples were collected at two sites in Mexico; one L was collected by grab and ~ 5 L were collected and filtered in situ with the BMFS. In the laboratory, 500 mL collected by grab were concentrated using TPS and the sample contained in the filter of the BMFS was eluted without secondary concentration. Concentrates were tested for the presence of poliovirus and non-poliovirus enterovirus (NPEV) using Global Poliovirus Laboratory Network standard procedures. Between February 16, 2016, and April 18, 2017, 125 pairs of samples were obtained. Collectors spent an average (± standard deviation) of 4.3 ± 2.2 min collecting the TPS sample versus 73.5 ± 30.5 min collecting and filtering the BMFS sample. Laboratory processing required an estimated 5 h for concentration by TPS and 3.5 h for elution. Sabin 1 poliovirus was detected in 37 [30%] samples with the TPS versus 24 [19%] samples with the BMFS (McNemar's mid p value = 0.004). Sabin 3 poliovirus was detected in 59 [47%] versus 49 (39%) samples (p = 0.043), and NPEV was detected in 67 [54%] versus 40 [32%] samples (p < 0.001). The BMFS method without secondary concentration did not perform as well as the TPS method for detecting Sabin poliovirus and NPEV. Further studies are needed to guide the selection of cost-effective environmental surveillance methods for the polio endgame.
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.