ArticleViruses2022
Evaluation of Two Broadly Used Commercial Methods for Detection of Respiratory Viruses with a Recently Added New Target for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- One Sample, Many Insights: The Epidemiological and Public Health Value of Multiplex PCR Respiratory Panels Following the End of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring Clinical Predictors of Severe Human Metapneumovirus Respiratory Tract Infections in Children: Insights from a Recent Outbreak.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Human Parainfluenza Virus (HPIV) Detection in Hospitalized Children with Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in the Western Cape, South Africa during 2014-2022 Reveals a Shift in Dominance of HPIV 3 and 4 Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Changes in HRSV Epidemiology but Not Circulating Variants in Hospitalized Children due to the Emergence of SARS-CoV-2.Viruses · 2023Article
- Clinical, Laboratory, and Radiographic Features Can Help PredictMicroorganisms · 2023Article
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
The clinical symptoms caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are nonspecific and can be associated with most other respiratory viruses that cause acute respiratory tract infections (ARI). Because the clinical differentiation of COVID-19 patients from those with other respiratory viruses is difficult, the evaluation of automated methods to detect important respiratory viruses together with SARS-CoV-2 seems necessary. Therefore, this study compares two molecular assays for the detection of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2: the Respiratory Viruses 16-Well Assay (AusDiagnostics, Pty Ltd., Mascot, Australia) and the Allplex™ RV Essential Assay coupled with the Allplex™-nCoV Assay (Seegene Inc., Seoul, Korea). The two methods (AusDiagnostics and Alplex
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.