ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2007
Evaluation of the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros ECi Anti-HCV test: comparison with three other methods.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and Treponema pallidum by Blood Testing Using a Bio-Flash Technology-Based Algorithm before Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Observational
- Evaluation of the VIDAS Anti-HCV Assay for Detection of Hepatitis C Virus Infection.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2016Article
- Diagnostic tests for hepatitis C: recent trends in electrochemical immunosensor and genosensor analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Prevalence of hepatitis C infection among intravenous drug users in Shanghai.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
- New tools in HCV diagnosis, in light of the enhanced awareness and the new drugs for treatment: SMARTube and stimmunology.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2013Article
- Clinical performance evaluation of four automated chemiluminescence immunoassays for hepatitis C virus antibody detection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After observing a high incidence of low positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody screens by the Ortho-Clinical Vitros ECi test (Orthoclinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ), we compared results against those obtained using another chemiluminescent analyzer, as well as two U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved confirmatory methodologies. To ascertain the true anti-HCV status of samples deemed low-positive by the Ortho-Clinical Vitros ECi test, we tested samples using the ADVIA Centaur HCV screen test (Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics), the Chiron recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) test (Chiron Corp., Emeryville, CA), and the Roche COBAS Amplicor HCV qualitative test (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) in a series of studies. Of 94 specimens positive by Vitros ECi, 19% were observed to be negative by Centaur. A separate study of 91 samples with signal-to-cutoff (s/co) values less than 8.0 showed that all but one was negative for HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA). In comparison with RIBA, 100% (77) samples positive by the Vitros ECi test with s/co values less than 12.0 were negative or indeterminate by RIBA. A final study comparing all four methods side-by-side showed 63% disagreement by Centaur for Vitros ECi low-positive samples, 75% disagreement by RIBA, and 97% disagreement by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In conclusion, the Ortho-Clinical Vitros ECi Anti-HCV test yields a high rate of false-positive results in the low s/co range in our patient population.
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.