ArticleViruses2025
Diagnostic Performance of a Silver-Amplified vs. a Non-Amplified Lateral Flow Kit for Adenoviral Conjunctivitis: A Multicenter Prospective Study.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of adenoviral conjunctivitis is critical for timely treatment and infection control. However, conventional lateral flow kits often lack sufficient sensitivity, especially in mild cases. This multicenter prospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of silver-amplified lateral flow kits (SA-LFKs) compared with non-silver-amplified kits (NSA-LFKs), using real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) as the reference standard. Tear samples from 200 patients with suspected adenoviral conjunctivitis were collected across four clinics and analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, and genotype coverage. The SA-LFK demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (86.0%) than the NSA-LFK (72.0%) (
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.