ReviewArchives of virology1995
Quantitative molecular methods in virology.
Review in Archives of virology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an RT-qPCR Assay for the Detection of an Emerging Duck Egg-Reducing Syndrome.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Cryptosporidiosis diagnosed using metagenomic next-generation sequencing in a healthy child admitted to pediatric intensive care unit: a case report.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Real-time Fluorescent PCR Techniques to Study Microbial-Host Interactions.Methods in microbiology · 2004Review
- Real-time PCR in virology.Nucleic acids research · 2002Review
- Molecular monitoring of ruminal prevotellas.Folia microbiologica · 2001Article
- Quantitative real-time PCR for the measurement of feline cytokine mRNA.Veterinary immunology and immunopathology · 1999Article
- Diagnostic medicine: the challenge of differentiating infection from disease and making sense for the veterinary clinician.Advances in veterinary medicine · 1999Review
- Quantification of hepatitis A virus in shellfish by competitive reverse transcription-PCR with coextraction of standard RNA.Applied and environmental microbiology · 1999Article
- Comparative study of different standardization concepts in quantitative competitive reverse transcription-PCR assays.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1998Article
- Clinical use of quantitative molecular methods in studying human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 1996Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the past few years, significant technical effort was made to develop molecular methods for the absolute quantitation of nucleic acids in biological samples. In virology, semi-quantitative and quantitative techniques of different principle, complexity, and reliability were designed, optimized, and applied in basic and clinical researches. The principal data obtained in successful pilot applications in vivo are reported in this paper and show the real usefulness of these methods to understand more details of the natural history of viral diseases and to monitor specific anti-viral treatments in real time. Theoretical considerations and practical applications indicate that the competitive polymerase chain reaction (cPCR) and competitive reverse-transcription PCR (cRT-PCR) assay systems share several advantages over other quantitative molecular methodologies, thus suggesting that these techniques are the methods of choice for the absolute quantitation of viral nucleic acids present in low amounts in biological samples. Although minor obstacles to a wide use of these quantitative methods in clinical virology still remain, further technical evolution is possible, thus making the quantitative procedures easier and apt to routine applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
7487485What 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.