ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2008
Rapid point-of-care test to detect broad ranges of protective antigen-specific immunoglobulin G concentrations in recipients of the U.S.-licensed anthrax vaccine.
Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temperature and the field stability of a dengue rapid diagnostic test in the tropics.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2015Article
- Antimicrobial activity of nanoemulsion in combination with cetylpyridinium chloride in multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2013Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Currently, there is no routine monitoring of an immune response to the anthrax vaccine. Simple on-site tests are needed to evaluate the antibody response of anthrax-vaccinated individuals in the Armed Forces and others at high risk. Using a prototype lateral flow assay (LFA) (R. E. Biagini, D. L. Sammons, J. P. Smith, B. A. MacKenzie, C. A. F. Striley, J. E. Snawder, S. A. Robertson, and C. P. Quinn, Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:541-546, 2006), we investigated the agreement between a validated anthrax protective antigen (PA) immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the LFA for 335 unvaccinated and vaccinated subjects. We also investigated the performance of the LFA under the following conditions: thermal shock (i.e., thermal cycling between temperature extremes), high temperature/high relative humidity, high temperature/low relative humidity, and low temperature/low relative humidity. With the anti-PA ELISA used as a standard, the LFA was shown to be optimally diagnostic at 11 microg/ml anti-PA-specific IgG. At this concentration, the LFA specificity and sensitivity were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97% to 100%) and 92% (CI, 88% to 97%), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded an area under the curve value of 0.988 (CI, 0.976 to 1.00), suggesting that the LFA is an extremely accurate diagnostic test. For < or = 4 or > or = 50 microg/ml PA-specific IgG, the LFA results for each environmental condition were identical to those obtained in the laboratory. These data indicate that this rapid point-of-care test would be a feasible tool in monitoring the serological antibody responses of individuals that have been vaccinated against anthrax.
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.