ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Standardization of Semi-Quantitative Dot Blotting Assay-Application in the Diagnosis, Follow-Up, and Relapse of Paracoccidioidomycosis.
Article in Microorganisms, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autochtonal case of chronic, unifocal, pulmonary paracoccidioidomycosis with methotrexate use, in Salvador ‒ Brazil.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study standardized a semi-quantitative dot blotting assay (DB) and a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to detect specific antibodies for METHODOLOGY: We evaluated 42 confirmed PCM patients upon admission using a serological double agar gel immunodiffusion test (DID), DB, and molecular tests (qPCR in total blood). The control groups included 42 healthy individuals and 37 patients with other infectious diseases. The serological progress during treatment was evaluated in eight patients, and there was a relapse diagnosis in ten patients using the Pb B.339 strain antigen. The cut-off points for the serological tests were determined by a receiver operator characteristic curve.
resultsThe DB and DID tests showed similar accuracy, but the DB identified lower antibody concentrations. Cross-reactions were absent in the DB assay. In the relapse diagnoses, DB exhibited much higher sensitivity (90%) than DID (30%).
conclusionsA DB assay is easier and faster than a DID test to be performed; DB and DID tests show the same accuracy, while blood qPCR is not recommended in the diagnosis at the time of admission; cross-reactions were not observed with other systemic diseases; DB and DID tests are useful for treatment monitoring PCM patients; and a DB assay is the choice for diagnosing relapse. These findings support the introduction of semi-quantitative DB assays in clinical laboratories.
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.