ArticleClinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology2001
Comparison of two commercial microimmunofluorescence kits and an enzyme immunoassay kit for detection of serum immunoglobulin G antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.
Article in Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 2001. 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence ofEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology · 2017Article
- Comparative Seroepidemiologic Analysis of Chlamydophila Pneumoniae Infection using Microimmunofluorescence, Enzyme Immunoassay and Neutralization Test: Implications for Serodiagnosis.Indian journal of microbiology · 2011Article
- Comparison of five commercial serological tests for the detection of anti-Chlamydia trachomatis antibodies.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010Article
- Prevalence and persistence of Chlamydia pneumoniae antibodies in healthy laboratory personnel in Finland.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2005Article
- Impact of serological methodology on assessment of the link between Chlamydia pneumoniae and vascular diseases.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2004Article
- Interlaboratory reliability of microimmunofluorescence test for measurement of Chlamydia pneumoniae-specific immunoglobulin A and G antibody titers.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2004Article
- Performance of three microimmunofluorescence assays for detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae immunoglobulin M, G, and A antibodies.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2002Article
- Inclusion fluorescent-antibody test as a screening assay for detection of antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2002Article
- Comparison of eleven commercial tests for Chlamydia pneumoniae-specific immunoglobulin G in asymptomatic healthy individuals.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
- Newly characterized species-specific immunogenic Chlamydophila pneumoniae peptide reactive with murine monoclonal and human serum antibodies.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2002Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the MRL and the Labsystems Chlamydia pneumoniae microimmunofluorescence (MIF) immunoglobulin G (IgG) kits and the Labsystems enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kit in a blinded study of 83 serum samples in which we evaluated titers, cross-reactivity to other species, and reproducibility. There was no statistically significant difference between the MRL and the Labsystems MIF kits in the endpoint titers of IgG antibody to C. pneumoniae. The correlation between the results obtained with these two MIF kits was excellent (r = 0.95; P = 0.001). The cross-reactivity of the C. pneumoniae-positive sera with C. trachomatis- and C. psittaci-positive sera was assessed for each MIF kit. For C. pneumoniae-positive sera with titers of > or =32, the Labsystems MIF kit exhibited more cross-reactivity to C. psittaci than the MRL kit did. The values obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit represented single dilutions of serum specimens expressed as enzymeimmuno units on a continuous scale. The results obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit correlated moderately well with those obtained with each MIF kit when they were compared for their abilities to detect IgG antibodies to C. pneumoniae (for the MRL MIF kit, r = 0.79 [P = 0.001]; for the Labsystems MIF kit, r = 0.78 [P = 0.001]). The results obtained with the commercial MRL and Labsystems MIF kits and the Labsystems EIA kit tested were reproducible; and the kits were standardized, had quality control reagents, and are suitable for detection of C. pneumoniae antibodies in serum and for use in interlaboratory studies. Validation of the use of these kits for clinical diagnosis still needs further evaluation.
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.