Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23678073›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013

Comparison of cytomegalovirus (CMV) enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot and CMV quantiferon gamma interferon-releasing assays in assessing risk of CMV infection in kidney transplant recipients.

Davide Abate, Alda Saldan, Carlo Mengoli, Marta Fiscon, Cristina Silvestre, Loredana Fallico, Marta Peracchi, Lucrezia Furian, Riccardo Cusinato, Luciana Bonfante and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Cytomegalovirus Cell-Mediated Immunity: Ready for Routine Use?Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023
    Review
  17. Torque teno virus viremia and QuantiFERONFrontiers in medicine · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Davide AbateDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Padua General Hospital, University of Padua School of Medicine, Padua, Italy. davide.abate@unipd.it
Alda Saldan
Carlo Mengoli
Marta Fiscon
Cristina Silvestre
Loredana Fallico
Marta Peracchi
Lucrezia Furian
Riccardo Cusinato
Luciana Bonfante
Barbara Rossi
Francesco Marchini
Dino Sgarabotto
Paolo Rigotti
Giorgio Palù
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) represents an appealing strategy for identifying transplant recipients at risk of infection. In this study, we compared two gamma interferon-releasing assays (IGRAs), Quantiferon-CMV and CMV enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT), to determine the ability of each test to predict protective CMV-specific T-cell responses. Two hundred twenty-one Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT tests were conducted on 120 adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), including 100 CMV-seropositive transplant recipients (R+) and 20 CMV-seronegative transplant recipients of a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-). As a control cohort, 39 healthy adult subjects (including 33 CMV-seropositive and 6 CMV-seronegative subjects) were enrolled. CMV IgG serology was used as a reference for both tests. In the CMV-seropositive individuals, the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays provided 46% concordance with the serology, 12% discordance, 18% disagreement between ELISPOT or Quantiferon-CMV and the serology, and 24% gray areas when one or both tests resulted in weak positives. None of the CMV-seronegative subjects showed detectable responses in the ELISPOT or the Quantiferon-CMV test. In transplant recipients, both the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays positively correlated with each other and negatively correlated with CMV DNAemia in a significant way (P<0.05). During the antiviral prophylaxis, all 20 D+/R- KTRs we examined displayed undetectable Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT results, and there was no evidence of CMV seroconversion. The receiving operator curve (ROC) statistical analysis revealed similar specificities and sensitivities in predicting detectable viremia (areas under the curve [AUC], 0.66 and 0.62 for Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT, respectively). ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV values of >150 spots/200,000 peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and >1 to 6 IU gamma interferon (IFN-γ) were associated with protection from CMV infection (odds ratios [OR], 5 and 8.75, respectively). In transplant recipients, the two tests displayed similar abilities for predicting CMV infection. Both the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays require several ameliorations to avoid false-negative results.

Indexed as

TransplantationAdultAgedCytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus InfectionsDiagnostic ErrorsEnzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayFemaleHumansInterferon-gamma Release TestsKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23678073
PMCPMC3719636
OpenAlexW2116796568

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.