ArticleCurrent medical science2020
Different Re-centrifugation Conditions for Infectious Disease Screening Using the Abbott I2000.
Article in Current medical science, 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, 0 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated whether an ordinary centrifuge can achieve the standard centrifugal effect required according to specifications for infectious disease screening using the Abbott i2000. Samples were collected and centrifuged following a standard operating procedure (SOP). They were then divided into three groups according to the results of the initial screening tests: a negative group, weak-positive group, and positive group. Twenty negative samples and all weak-positive and positive samples were re-analyzed. Two tubes for each re-analyzed sample were centrifuged simultaneously, one for 10 min at 10 000 × g, per recommendations, and one for 10 min at 2750 × g. No significant difference was found between the groups using different centrifugal forces. There was a strong correlation in the quantitative values between the two conditions of centrifugation. Consistency analysis showed a Cronbach's alpha > 0.8 for detection of Treponema pallidum, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B surface antigen in the three groups (negative group, weak-positive group, and positive group) under different centrifugation conditions. Strong consistency was found under different centrifugal conditions, regardless of the initial testing results. In conclusion, we conducted centrifugation steps in duplicate, according to infectious disease screening protocols. Our study showed that all samples should be centrifuged using a recommended relative centrifugal force after a proper clotting time, as in the standard operating procedure of our laboratory. In this way, we were able to obtain the same results using an ordinary centrifuge as those obtained using a high-speed centrifuge, such as the Abbott i2000.
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.