ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2010
Comparison of three automated immunoassay methods for the determination of Epstein-Barr virus-specific immunoglobulin M.
Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering Positive Cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin M Test Results in Immunocompetent Adults Hospitalized With Illness Suspicious for Acute Cytomegalovirus Infection: A Multihospital Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Evaluation of a standardised real-time PCR based DNA-detection method (Realstar®) in whole blood for the diagnosis of primary human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in immunocompetent patients.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
- Cytomegalic hepatitis in a patient receiving omalizumab.IDCases · 2016Article
- Performance of the architect EBV antibody panel for determination of Epstein-Barr virus infection stage in immunocompetent adolescents and young adults with clinical suspicion of infectious mononucleosis.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2014Article
- Performance of two commercially available automated immunoassays for the determination of Epstein-Barr virus serological status.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2012Article
- Evaluation of four commercial systems for the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus primary infections.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2011Article
- Multiplex detection of IgM and IgG class antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii, rubella virus, and cytomegalovirus using a novel multiplex flow immunoassay.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study we compared the performances of three commercially available Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) immunoglobulin M (IgM) assays on highly automated immunoassay platforms: BioPlex 2200 (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Immulite 2000 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), and Liaison (DiaSorin). As a confirmatory method, immunoblotting was performed. The specificity of the three EBV IgM assays was evaluated by testing 293 selected sera from patients with various infectious and noninfectious diseases. After the exclusion of 30 samples, the specificities were 96.2% for Liaison, 98.1% for Immulite, and 97.0% for BioPlex. For evaluation of the sensitivity, samples from 70 consecutive patients with a positive heterophile antibody test were examined, irrespective of clinical or biological findings. After the exclusion of six samples, the sensitivities were 89.1% for Liaison, 84.4% for Immulite, and 89.1% for BioPlex. Finally, in a prospective study performed with 500 samples obtained from consecutive patients and sent in by general practitioners, we also determined Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen IgG and viral capsid antigen IgG in a two-phase approach. Concordance of the EBV serologic status was 96.2% between Liaison and Immulite, 96.4% between Immulite and BioPlex, and 97.8% between BioPlex and Liaison. The three EBV IgM immunoassays that we evaluated have acceptable and comparable performances.
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.