ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2008
Comparison and evaluation of four commercial kits relative to an in-house immunofluorescence test for detection of antibodies against Legionella pneumophila.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Review Global seroprevalence of legionellosis - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2011Guideline
- Seroepidemiological study after a long-distance industrial outbreak of legionnaires' disease.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2009Article
- Legionella antibodies in a Danish hospital staff with known occupational exposure.Journal of environmental and public health · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four commercially available kits from (1) Focus Diagnostics, (2) SERION, (3) Zeus and (4) Vircell for detection of antibodies to Legionella pneumophila were evaluated with panels of sera from patients with proven Legionella infection (n = 81) and/or other bacterial infections (n = 75). An in-house indirect Legionella immunofluorescence antibody test (IF test) was used as reference. All sera from the laboratory-proven Legionella pneumophila cases [culture, urinary antigen test and/or polymerase chain reaction] of Legionella infection were found to be positive by the in-house IF test. The relative sensitivity for Focus Diagnostics, SERION, Zeus and Vircell kits was 81.5, 76.5, 68.8 and 62.5%, respectively, and the false-positive rate was 16.0, 5.6, 29.0 and 2.7%, respectively. The in-house IF test had a false-positive rate of 4.0%. It was found that none of the four commercial kits were as sensitive and specific as the in-house IF test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17992549What 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.