ArticleTropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines2020
Panspecies molecular assays detect viral pathogens missed by real-time PCR/reverse-transcriptase PCR among pneumonia patients, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Article in Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats from Influenza D and Canine Coronavirus HuPn-2018.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Diverse respiratory viruses detected among hospitalized patients with pneumonia in Sri Lanka and Vietnam.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Co-infections with Multiple Viruses: A Frequent cause of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Sarawak Malaysia.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Revisiting the emergence of the Chikungunya virus in Alagoas, Northeast of Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Novel Rodent Coronavirus-like Virus Detected Among Beef Cattle with Respiratory Disease in Mexico.Viruses · 2025Article
- Metagenomic and Molecular Detection of Novel Fecal Viruses in Free-Ranging Agile Wallabies.EcoHealth · 2023Article
- Ecological surveillance of bat coronaviruses in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- A pan-coronavirus RT-PCR assay for rapid viral screening of animal, human, and environmental specimens.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Mitigating Future Respiratory Virus Pandemics: New Threats and Approaches to Consider.Viruses · 2021Review
- While We Endure This Pandemic, What New Respiratory Virus Threats Are We Missing?Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a year-long pneumonia etiology study conducted June 2017 to May 2018 in Sarawak, Malaysia, 599 patients' nasopharyngeal swab specimens were studied with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rPCR)/ reverse-transcription (rRT-PCR) assays for respiratory pathogens known to contribute to the high burden of lower respiratory tract infections. The study team sought to compare real-time assay results with panspecies conventional molecular diagnostics to compare sensitivities and learn if novel viruses had been missed.
methodsSpecimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.
resultsThere was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.
conclusionsThe observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.
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.