ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2020
Challenges to Differentiate Hepatitis C Genotype 1 and 6: Results from A Field-Study in Cambodia.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02361541 (Determination of Hepatitis C Prevalence, Genetic Diversity and Treatment Eligibility in an HIV Patient Cohort in Phnom Penh, Cambodia), which is not on this 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.
Determination of Hepatitis C Prevalence, Genetic Diversity and Treatment Eligibility in an HIV Patient Cohort in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiological trends of HCV subtypes in China.Virus genes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aim to report on results and challenges of different methods used for hepatitis C (HCV) genotyping in a Cambodian HCV/HIV coinfection project.
methodsSamples of 106 patients were available. HCV genotyping was initially (63 samples) done by the LightPower Taqman real-time PCR method (Viet A Corp.) and quality controlled using the Versant 2.0 line probe assay (Siemens Healthcare). Next, following interim quality control results, all 106 samples were (re)genotyped with Versant 2.0, complemented with 5'UTR/core sequencing for uninterpretable/incomplete Versant results.
resultsUsing Versant, 103 (97.2%) of the 106 HCV-coinfected patients had an interpretable genotype result: 1b (50.5%), 6 non-a/non-b (30.1%), 1a (6.8%), 6a or b (4.9%), 2 (3.9%), 1 (2.9%) and 3 (1.0%). For 16 samples that were interpreted as genotype 1 or 1b per Versant's current instructions, it could not be excluded that it concerned a genotype 6 infection as the core region line patterns on the Versant test strip were unavailable, inconclusive or atypical. Upon sequencing, seven of these were genotyped as 1b and nine as genotype 6. Combining Versant and sequencing results, a definitive genotype was assigned in 104 patients: 1b (44.2%), 6 non-a/non-b (39.4%), 1a (6.7%), 6a or b (4.8%), 2 (3.8%) and 3 (1.0%). Genotyping by LightPower and Versant was discordant for 23 (of 63) samples. The LightPower assay misclassified all genotype 6 non-a/non-b samples as genotype 1, which indicates that this assay is only using 5'UTR information.
conclusionsHCV genotype 1b and genotype 6 non-a/non-b were most common. With Versant 2.0 (using 5'UTR and core information), genotype classification (1 or 6) remained inconclusive in 15% of samples. The locally available method (LightPower assay) failed to identify genotype 6 non-a/non-b, which highlights that methods using 5'UTR information only should not be used in Cambodia. Regional/national guidelines should be explicit about this.
trial registrationThis study was performed as part of a larger cross-sectional study on the burden of hepatitis C coinfection in HIV patients in Cambodia (Clinical.trials.gov: HCV-Epi NCT02361541).
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.