Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21191077›Full record

ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2011

Evaluation of four commercial systems for the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus primary infections.

Fernando de Ory, María Eulalia Guisasola, Juan Carlos Sanz, Isabel García-Bermejo

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Application of a commercial immunoblot to define EBV IgG seroprofiles.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fernando de OryServicio de Microbiología Diagnóstica, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, 28220 Madrid, Spain. fory@isciii.es
María Eulalia Guisasola
Juan Carlos Sanz
Isabel García-Bermejo
Instituto de Salud Carlos III · ESComunidad de Madrid · ESHospital Universitario de Getafe · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the performance of four diagnostic commercial systems for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (for IgM and IgG virus capsid antigen [VCA] and EBV nuclear antigen [EBNA] antibodies), a collection of 125 samples from clinically suspected infectious mononucleosis cases was studied. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for VCA IgM and IgG antibodies and anticomplement immunofluorescence for EBNA antibodies (Meridian Bioscience Inc.) were used as reference methods. By these methods, the cases were classified EBV primary infection (presence of IgM to VCA or IgG to VCA in the absence of EBNA antibodies; n = 82), EBV past infection (presence of VCA IgG and EBNA antibodies in the absence of VCA IgM; n = 26), or no infection (negative for the three markers; n = 17). The following systems were tested: two chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs; the Liason [CLIA-L; DiaSorin] and the Immulite 2000 [CLIA-I; Siemens]), immunofiltration (IF; All.Diag), and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; DiaSorin). In the IgM assays, sensitivities ranged from 67.1% (ELISA) to 92.2% (CLIA-L) and specificities ranged from 93.8% (CLIA-L) to 100% (IF). In the VCA IgG assays, sensitivities varied from 79.4% (IF) to 94.4% (CLIA-I) and specificities varied from 94.4% (IF and CLIA-L) to 100% (CLIA-I and ELISA). In EBNA assays, sensitivities ranged from 78.1% (IF) to 93.8% (CLIA-I) and specificities ranged from 32.3% (CLIA-L) to 91.4% (IF). In relation to EBV profiles, the corresponding figures for sensitivity (in detecting primary infection) for IF, CLIA-L, CLIA-I, and ELISA were 92.7%, 93.8%, 89%, and 89.6%, respectively, and those for specificity (to exclude primary recent infection) were 90.7%, 94.6%, 97.7%, and 95.2%, respectively. Although there were limitations in some individual markers, especially CLIA-L for EBNA IgG, the systems evaluated appear to be useful for diagnosis of EBV infection.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralClinical Laboratory TechniquesEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsVirologyAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21191077
PMCPMC3067387
OpenAlexW2144893515

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.