ArticleViruses2025
Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect Equine Rotavirus A.
Article in Viruses, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study describes a comparison of the detection of rotavirus in clinical samples from foals using two commercially available rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits, with the detection of rotavirus nucleic acid via a laboratory-based, in-house, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. One hundred and forty freeze-thawed samples (70 that were RT-PCR-positive and 70 that were RT-PCR-negative on original tests) submitted to the diagnostic laboratory over a seven-year period were tested in addition to 123 fresh samples (15 RT-PCR-positive and 108 RT-PCR-negative) submitted over a four- month period in 2024. The analyst performing the RAD tests was blinded to the RT-PCR result as were the two individuals who read the results. Samples with discordant results were re-tested in duplicate using RT-PCR and the two RAD kits. Both kits demonstrated a high level of concordance with the RT-PCR (>95%). However, testing of serial dilutions of RT-PCR positive faeces samples indicated that the RADs failed to detect the virus at the higher dilutions. In conclusion, the RADs evaluated are potentially useful for screening individual foals and for the determination of the urgency of the appropriate treatment and isolation. Negative samples from suspect cases and weak positives should always be submitted to a specialist laboratory for real-time RT-PCR testing.
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.