ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2020
Bayesian Evaluation of Solana HSV 1+2/VZV Assay Compared to Viral Culture and Commercial PCR Assay for Cutaneous or Mucocutaneous Specimens.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Results from the Solana HSV 1+2/VZV assay for the detection of herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), HSV-2, and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) in cutaneous or mucocutaneous specimens were compared with that of viral culture and a commercial PCR assay (RealStar alpha herpesvirus PCR kit). Three hundred two mucocutaneous specimens, for which HSV-1, HSV-2, or VZV viral culture or PCR detection have been requested, were randomly selected and prospectively processed on the Solana assay and viral culture or the RealStar assay. Discordant results between culture and the Solana assay were further analyzed using the RealStar assay. A Bayesian latent class model was developed to estimate the performance of each method. Viral culture detected 123 positive specimens (85 HSV-1, 36 HSV-2, and 2 VZV), while the Solana assay detected 27 additional positive specimens (4 HSV-1, 11 HSV-2, and 12 VZV), in agreement with the RealStar PCR assay. The estimated sensitivity of the Solana assay according to our model was 92.7% to 98.7%, 87.1% to 97.8%, and 94.9% to 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]) for HSV-1 HSV-2, and VZV, respectively, while the estimated sensitivity of viral culture was 85.2% to 95.0%, 73.6% to 89.6%, and 30.9% to 45.8% (95% CI), respectively. A nonsignificant tendency toward increased sensitivity was noted for the Solana assay compared with culture for HSV-1 and HSV-2, and the Solana assay was significantly more sensitive than culture for the detection of VZV. The Solana assay performed comparably to the RealStar assay. Processing time was reduced with the Solana assay compared with viral culture.
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.