ArticleScientific reports2022
A performance comparison between fluorescent immunoassay and immunochromatography for rapid dengue detection in clinical specimens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dengue virus (DENV 1-4) infection has been a global health threat where no specific treatment is currently available. Therefore, a rapid and accurate diagnosis is critical for an appropriate management as it could reduce the burden of severe clinical manifestation. Currently, dengue immunochromatography (IC) is commonly used to primarily differentiate acute febrile illnesses. Fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) utilized a highly sensitive detection system and claimed 70-100% sensitivity and 83.5-91.7% specificity for dengue infection in a preliminary report. This report recruited samples with acute febrile illnesses sent for dengue screening and tested IC and FIA in parallel. The performance of both tests was verified by a definitive diagnosis retrieved from combinatorial reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for IgM and IgG confirmation tests. Results showed that the viral nonstructural protein (NS1) performance of FIA was slightly higher than IC with the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, agreement, kappa, and its standard error at 79.11, 92.28, 86.81, 87.31, 352 (87.13%), 0.725 ± 0.035, respectively; whereas those of the IC were at 76.58, 92.28, 86.43, 85.98, 348 (86.14%), 0.703 ± 0.037, respectively. Moreover, the IgM and IgG performance of FIA had higher specificity, PPV, and agreement than the IgM IC performance, suggesting that the FIA was more specific but less sensitive for antibody detection. No correlation was observed in IgM and IgG levels of ELISA and FIA assays. In conclusion, the FIA and IC were highly sensitive, specific, and substantially agreed in NS1 detection but moderately agreed in IgM and IgG detection.
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.