ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and clinical validation of a novel multiplex PCR test for detection of respiratory pathogens via fluorescence melting curve analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Monitoring of RSV-A and RSV-B Circulation in Poland Across Three Post-Pandemic Seasons (2022-2025).Viruses · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory infections caused by pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae pose significant diagnostic challenges due to overlapping clinical symptoms, particularly during seasonal outbreaks. Conventional single-pathogen tests and commercial multiplex PCR kits are often costly, time-consuming, and lack flexibility for resource-limited settings. To address these limitations, we developed a novel fluorescence melting curve analysis-based (FMCA-based) multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of six respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus (IAV), influenza B virus (IBV), M. pneumoniae, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human adenovirus (hADV). The method was evaluated for its limit of detection (LOD), precision and specificity before clinical validation, followed by a prospective single-center study in patients with presumptive acute respiratory infections. Analytical validation revealed high sensitivity with limits of detection (LOD) between 4.94 and 14.03 copies/µL, exceptional precision (intra-/inter-assay CVs ≤ 0.70% and ≤ 0.50%), and no cross-reactivity. Clinical evaluation using 1005 samples demonstrated 98.81% agreement with RT-qPCR, identifying 51.54% pathogen-positive cases, including 6.07% co-infections. The assay resolved 12 discordant results via sanger sequencing, confirming superior sensitivity in low viral load scenarios. With a turnaround time of 1.5 h and a cost of $5/sample (86.5% cheaper than commercial kits), this scalable platform enables high-throughput screening during outbreaks. Our findings highlight its potential as a cost-effective, rapid diagnostic tool for differentiating respiratory pathogens, guiding clinical management, and enhancing surveillance in diverse healthcare settings. Further adaptations to include emerging variants and sample types could strengthen global preparedness for respiratory epidemics.
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.