ArticleViruses2024
Comparative Performance in the Detection of Four Coronavirus Genera from Human, Animal, and Environmental Specimens.
Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whole-Genome Characterization of Rodent Coronaviruses (RCoVs) in Thailand, 2024-2025.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Connecting the Dots: Systems Thinking Highlights the Role of the Environment Sector in One Health Operationalization.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Quan and Watanabe Pan-Coronavirus Assays for Bat Coronavirus Diversity in Sarawak, East Malaysia.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Study of coronavirus diversity in wildlife in Northern Cambodia suggests continuous circulation of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in bats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- First Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Emerging coronaviruses (CoVs) are understood to cause critical human and domestic animal diseases; the spillover from wildlife reservoirs can result in mild and severe respiratory illness in humans and domestic animals and can spread more readily in these naïve hosts. A low-cost CoV molecular method that can detect a variety of CoVs from humans, animals, and environmental specimens is an initial step to ensure the early identification of known and new viruses. We examine a collection of 50 human, 46 wastewater, 28 bat, and 17 avian archived specimens using 3 published pan-CoV PCR assays called Q-, W-, and X-CoV PCR, to compare the performance of each assay against four CoV genera. X-CoV PCR can detect all four CoV genera, but Q- and W-CoV PCR failed to detect δ-CoV. In total, 21 (42.0%), 9 (18.0%), and 21 (42.0%) of 50 human specimens and 30 (65.22%), 6 (13.04%), and 27 (58.70%) of 46 wastewater specimens were detected using Q-, W-, and X-CoV PCR assays, respectively. The X-CoV PCR assay has a comparable sensitivity to Q-CoV PCR in bat CoV detection. Combining Q- and X-CoV PCR assays can increase sensitivity and avoid false negative results in the early detection of novel CoVs.
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.