ArticleViruses2021
Method Development for Enteric Virus Recovery from Primary Sludge.
Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enteric viruses, such as poliovirus, are a leading cause of gastroenteritis, which causes 2-3 million deaths annually. Environmental surveillance of wastewater supplements clinical surveillance for monitoring enteric virus circulation. However, while many environmental surveillance methods require liquid samples, some at-risk locations utilize pit latrines with waste characterized by high solids content. This study's objective was to develop and evaluate enteric virus concentration protocols for high solids content samples. Two existing protocols were modified and tested using poliovirus type 1 (PV1) seeded into primary sludge. Method 1 (M1) utilized acid adsorption, followed by 2 or 3 elutions (glycine/sodium chloride and/or threonine/sodium chloride), and skimmed milk flocculation. Method 2 (M2) began with centrifugation. The liquid fraction was filtered through a ViroCap filter and eluted (beef extract/glycine). The solid fraction was eluted (beef extract/disodium hydrogen phosphate/citric acid) and concentrated by skimmed milk flocculation. Recovery was enumerated by plaque assay. M1 yielded higher PV1 recovery than M2, though this result was not statistically significant (26.1% and 15.9%, respectively). M1 was further optimized, resulting in significantly greater PV1 recovery when compared to the original protocol (
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.