ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2020
Accuracy and Cross-Reactivity of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Norovirus and Rotavirus in a Real Clinical Setting.
Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aptamer-Functionalized Gold Nanoparticle Assay for Rapid Visual Detection of Norovirus in Stool Samples.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Proteomics as a complementary approach to measure norovirus infection in clinical samples.Virology · 2025Review
- Article
- Wastewater Knows Pathogen Spread: Analysis of Residential Wastewater for Infectious Microorganisms including SARS-CoV-2.Infection & chemotherapy · 2023Article
- RT-PCR-based assessment of the SD Bioline Rota/Adeno Antigen-based test in infants with and without diarrhea.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Acute Infectious Gastroenteritis: The Causative Agents, Omics-Based Detection of Antigens and Novel Biomarkers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostic test (RDT) of norovirus and rotavirus is commonly used for outbreak screening and patient management. Varying accuracy of the test and cross-reactivity has been reported and could affect the outcome of management. The primary purpose of this study is to provide the accuracy of norovirus and rotavirus rapid diagnostic tests and to analyze the cross-reactivity of both tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsStool samples collected from every acute diarrhea patient aged <15 years old who was admitted at Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from November 2014 to September 2016 underwent the following test: QuickNaviTM - Norovirus2 for norovirus, VIKIA® Rota-Adeno for rotavirus, and aerobic bacterial culture. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was used as a gold standard for virus detection. False-positive results determined cross-reactivity.
resultsFrom 358 stool specimens, the sensitivity of RDTs for norovirus and rotavirus was 27.5% and 44.8%, respectively. The specificity of RDTs for norovirus and rotavirus was 97.7% and 91.6%, respectively. False positive results of RDT for norovirus occurred in 6 samples (1.7%) and 22 samples (6.1%) in RDT for rotavirus. Rotavirus RDT was found to have cross-reactivity with 11 norovirus infection and 3 bacterial infected stools.
conclusionWe found that the RDTs for both rotavirus and norovirus have high specificity but low sensitivity. Cross-reactivity was observed in positive rotavirus RDT with half of it being norovirus.
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.