ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2012
Performance of two commercially available automated immunoassays for the determination of Epstein-Barr virus serological status.
Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2012. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epstein-Barr virus serological profiles and atypical patterns in a large tertiary-care cohort: a retrospective study of 11,503 patients.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2026Article
- Evolution of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection Seroprevalence in a French University Hospital over 11 Years, Including the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2013-2023.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Human Cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin G Response and Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Adolescents: A Case-Control Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Review
- Comparison of Elecsys and Liaison immunoassays to determine Epstein-Barr virus serological status using further diagnostic approaches to clarify discrepant results.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Facial nerve palsy secondary to Epstein-Barr virus infection of the middle ear in pediatric population may be more common than we think.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the Architect Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgG, VCA IgM, and EBV nuclear antigen 1 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassays for detection of EBV antibodies and categorization of EBV infection status using immunofluorescence assays as the reference method.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2014Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of two automated Vidas (V) and Liaison (L) immunoassays for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology. The detection of the viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgM, the VCA/early antigen (VCA/EA) IgG, and the Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA) IgG was assessed on 526 sera collected for routine EBV testing in immunocompetent subjects. The determination of expected EBV status (186 EBV primary infections, 183 past EBV infections, and 157 EBV-seronegative individuals) was based on results of routine laboratory enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) together with clinical data. The sensitivity and specificity of each individual marker were determined in comparison to the expected EBV status. The agreement between the V and L profiles and the expected EBV status was established through the interpretation of combinations of the different EBV markers. Statistically significant differences between the two tests were found for the specificity of the VCA IgM marker (96.2% for V versus 93.2% for L), the sensitivity of the VCA/EA IgG marker (89% for V versus 94% for L), and the specificity of the EBNA IgG marker (96.5% for V versus 74.2% for L). The results determined for the two assays with respect to overall agreement with the established expected EBV status were not significantly different (89.7% for V versus 88.2% for L), with discrepancies mainly observed in sera referenced as primary infections. These findings demonstrated the similar performances of the Vidas and the Liaison assays for the establishment of an EBV serological status using the VCA, EA, and EBNA markers.
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.