ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
Comparison of Nanotrap
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acinetobacter baumannii-rare virulence factors and pathogenesis: the impact of biofilm associated protein (Bap), outer membrane vesicles, and iron acquisition system.Archives of microbiology · 2025Review
- Targeting PilA in Acinetobacter baumannii: A Computational Approach for Anti-Virulent Compound Discovery.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking Concentration and Extraction Methods for Wastewater-Based Surveillance of Eight Human Respiratory Viruses: Implications for Rapid Application to Novel Pathogens.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- A cost-benefit analysis of using wastewater monitoring to guide typhoid vaccine campaigns.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2025Article
- Evaluating Nanotrap Microbiome Particles as A Wastewater Viral Concentration Method.Food and environmental virology · 2025Article
- Enhanced Recovery and Detection of Highly Infectious Animal Disease Viruses by Virus Capture Using NanotrapViruses · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA monitoring in wastewater has become an important tool for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance. Grab (quantitative) and passive samples (qualitative) are two distinct wastewater sampling methods. Although many viral concentration methods such as the usage of membrane filtration and skim milk are reported, these methods generally require large volumes of wastewater, expensive lab equipment, and laborious processes. Methods: The objectives of this study were to compare two workflows (Nanotrap Results: Adding ER1 to wastewater prior to viral concentration significantly improved viral concentration results ( Discussion: These results suggest that Nanotrap workflows could substitute the traditional membrane filtration and skim milk workflows for viral concentration without compromising the assay sensitivity. The manual workflow can be used in resource-limited areas, and the automated workflow is appropriate for large-scale COVID-19 wastewater-based surveillance.
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.