ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Performance evaluation of Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA and NORO for detection of rotavirus and norovirus: A comparative study of assay performance with RIDASCREEN
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Evaluation of a Nanoparticle-Based Immunoassay for Rotavirus Detection: A Suitable Alternative to ELISA and PCR in Low-Income Setting.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Development of a rapid homogeneous immunoassay for detection of rotavirus in stool samples.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Acute Infectious Gastroenteritis: The Causative Agents, Omics-Based Detection of Antigens and Novel Biomarkers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Performance evaluation of Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA and NORO for detection of rotavirus and norovirus: A comparative study of assay performance with RIDASCREENJournal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA (AFIAS-Rota) and NORO (AFIAS-Noro) assays (Boditech Med Inc.) are newly developed diagnostic tests for rotavirus and norovirus infections.
methodsPerformance of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays was evaluated in comparison with RIDASCREEN
resultsA total of 256 clinical specimens were analyzed. AFIAS-Rota and RIDASCREEN Rotavirus had almost perfect agreement (Kappa value = 0.95), and substantial agreement was observed between AFIAS-Noro and RIDASCREEN Norovirus (Kappa value = 0.80). For detection of rotavirus, AFIAS and RIDASCREEN assays showed satisfactory diagnostic sensitivity (100% and 97.8%, respectively) and specificity (99.5% and 99.1%). For detection of norovirus, the RIDASCREEN assay showed significantly higher sensitivity than the AFIAS-Noro (86.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P = .002). Analytic specificity of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed no cross-reactivity against any other bacteria (14 strains) or viruses (2 strains). Hands-on time (6 minutes) and turnaround time (26 minutes) required to perform AFIAS assays were much shorter than those required for RIDASCREEN assays (20 and 150 minutes, respectively).
conclusionThe AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed overall excellent agreement with the RIDASCREEN assays. Although the AFIAS-Noro assay exhibited lower sensitivity than the RIDASCREEN Norovirus assay for detection of norovirus, the AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays could be useful as a rapid initial screening test in clinical laboratories due to its convenience and rapid turnaround time.
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.