Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12522043›Full record

ArticleClinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology2003

Evaluation of four commercially available Epstein-Barr virus enzyme immunoassays with an immunofluorescence assay as the reference method.

Barbara C Gärtner, Ralf D Hess, Dirk Bandt, Alexander Kruse, Axel Rethwilm, Klaus Roemer, Nikolaus Mueller-Lantzsch

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Correlates of illness severity in infectious mononucleosis.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2014
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Stress-related Epstein-Barr virus reactivation.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2010
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Barbara C GärtnerDepartment of Virology, EBV Reference Center, University Homburg/Saar, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Ralf D Hess
Dirk Bandt
Alexander Kruse
Axel Rethwilm
Klaus Roemer
Nikolaus Mueller-Lantzsch
Saarland University · DECS Diagnostics · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Novitec, Biotest, Virotech, and DiaSorin) were evaluated, with an indirect immunofluorescence assay as the reference method, for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) VCA (viral capsid antigen) immunoglobulin G (IgG), VCA IgM, or EBNA (EBV nuclear antigen) IgG at three different locations (Homburg, Stuttgart, and Dresden). Serum samples from 66 immunocompetent patients with infectious mononucleosis, 73 patients without prior EBV infection, and 96 patients with past EBV infections and 29 serum samples with possible cross-reactions to other herpesviruses were included. In addition, 25 samples from an extensively pretested panel that is commercially available (Boston Biomedica) were tested. Each sample was tested at only one location. The four EIAs varied considerably in performance. When analyzing for EBV diagnosis, the Novitec assay performed the best, with 4.9% discrepant diagnoses, followed by the Biotest, Virotech, and DiaSorin assays, with 6.8, 11.7, and 14.0% discrepant diagnoses, respectively. On the basis of single-parameter analysis, the Novitec assay also showed the lowest number of discrepant results, with 3.5%, compared with the Virotech, Biotest, and DiaSorin assays, which produced 5.4, 6.4, and 8.6% discrepant results, respectively. VCA assays using affinity-purified native antigens performed better than assays with recombinant or synthetic antigens. The synthetic EBNA-1s showed the lowest concordance with the reference compared to recombinant p72. Commercially available EBV EIAs differed considerably in performance; however, some proved to be reliable and convenient alternatives to the indirect immunofluorescence assay for routine diagnostics. Native antigens, rather than synthetic peptides, are favored for EBV serology testing.

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralCapsid ProteinsCross ReactionsDiagnostic ErrorsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsEpstein-Barr Virus Nuclear AntigensFluorescent Antibody Technique, DirectHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MReagent Kits, DiagnosticAntigens, ViralCapsid ProteinsEpstein-Barr viral capsid antigenEpstein-Barr Virus Nuclear AntigensImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID12522043
PMCPMC145280
OpenAlexW2126278616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.