Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550028›Full record

ArticleParasite (Paris, France)2022

The Novodiag

Sophie Hartuis, Rose-Anne Lavergne, Céline Nourrisson, Jaco Verweij, Guillaume Desoubeaux, Florian Lussac-Sorton, Jean-Philippe Lemoine, Estelle Cateau, Fakhri Jeddi, Philippe Poirier and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasite (Paris, France), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Emerging microbes & infections · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of the Performance of the NovodiagPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sophie HartuisNantes Université, CHU de Nantes, Cibles et Médicaments des Infections et de l'Immunité, IICiMed, UR1155, 44000 Nantes, France.
Rose-Anne LavergneNantes Université, CHU de Nantes, Cibles et Médicaments des Infections et de l'Immunité, IICiMed, UR1155, 44000 Nantes, France.
Céline NourrissonLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Centre de Biologie, CHU Gabriel Montpied, 58 rue Montalembert, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Jaco VerweijElisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Microvida Laboratory for Medical Microbiology and Immunology, PO Box 90151, 5000 Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Guillaume DesoubeauxService de Parasitologie - Mycologie - Médecine Tropicale, CHRU de Tours, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37000 Tours, France.
Florian Lussac-SortonLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie PTMI - Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33076 Bordeaux, France.
Jean-Philippe LemoineLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU, 4 rue Larrey, 49033 Angers, France.
Estelle CateauLaboratoire de Parasitologie et Mycologie Médicales, CHU La Miletrie, BP 577, 86021 Poitiers Cedex, France.
Fakhri JeddiNantes Université, CHU de Nantes, Cibles et Médicaments des Infections et de l'Immunité, IICiMed, UR1155, 44000 Nantes, France.
Philippe PoirierLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Centre de Biologie, CHU Gabriel Montpied, 58 rue Montalembert, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Patrice Le PapeNantes Université, CHU de Nantes, Cibles et Médicaments des Infections et de l'Immunité, IICiMed, UR1155, 44000 Nantes, France.
Florent MorioNantes Université, CHU de Nantes, Cibles et Médicaments des Infections et de l'Immunité, IICiMed, UR1155, 44000 Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5859-6105

Funding

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe provide the first evaluation of the CE-IVD marked Novodiag

methodsA total of 254 samples (n = 205 patients) were prospectively processed by the NVD and our routine procedure (RP). Performances of the NVD were compared with RP. Samples only positive by the NVD assay were investigated by external PCR assays. Sensitivity and specificity (Se/Sp) and time from sample receipt to results were determined for each method. The NVD was also evaluated against 77 additional samples positive for a wide range of parasites.

resultsOverall positivity rate was 16.9% for RP compared with 34% using the NVD assay, and 164 samples (66%) were negative by both methods. Only 30 positive samples (12%) showed full concordance between RP and NVD. Fifty-three discordant samples were sent for external investigations. Except for Giardia intestinalis and Trichuris spp., higher Se was observed for the NVD assay for Blastocystis spp. (100% vs. 63%), Dientamoeba fragilis (100% vs. 0%), Schistosoma spp. (100% vs. 17%), and Enterobius vermicularis (100% vs. 67%) but roughly similar to RP for the remaining parasites tested. False-positive results were identified for Blastocystis spp., G. intestinalis, and Trichuris spp. using the NVD assay. The NVD mostly provides a diagnosis on the day of sample receipt compared with a mean of three days with RP.

conclusionsBesides some limitations, the NVD is a new diagnostic strategy allowing rapid and high-plex detection of gastrointestinal parasites from unpreserved stools.

Indexed as

BlastocystisHelminthsMicrosporidiaParasitesAnimalsFecesHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesComparative evaluationGastrointestinal parasitesHigh-plex detectionMicroscopyNovodiag® Stool ParasitesProspective studyStool

Identifiers

PMID35550028
PMCPMC9102957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.