ArticlePloS one2014
Variability of the QuantiFERON®-TB gold in-tube test using automated and manual methods.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducibility of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) release Assays. A systematic review.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2014Pooled it
- Role of interferon gamma release assay in the diagnosis and management ofBMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Standard E TB-Feron Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Health Care Workers.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Analytical performance of three diagnostic reagents for HBsAg on an automatic ELISA analyzer.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Interferon Gamma Release Assays for Latent Tuberculosis: What Are the Sources of Variability?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Review
- Improved Standardization of the Bio-Rad Platelia Aspergillus Galactomannan Antigen Sandwich Enzyme Immunoassay Using the DS2 (Dynex) Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Processing System.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- The dynamics of QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube conversion and reversion in a cohort of South African adolescents.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT) detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection by measuring release of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) when T-cells (in heparinized whole blood) are stimulated with specific Mtb antigens. The amount of IFN-γ is determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Automation of the ELISA method may reduce variability. To assess the impact of ELISA automation, we compared QFT-GIT results and variability when ELISAs were performed manually and with automation.
methodsBlood was collected into two sets of QFT-GIT tubes and processed at the same time. For each set, IFN-γ was measured in automated and manual ELISAs. Variability in interpretations and IFN-γ measurements was assessed between automated (A1 vs. A2) and manual (M1 vs. M2) ELISAs. Variability in IFN-γ measurements was also assessed on separate groups stratified by the mean of the four ELISAs.
resultsSubjects (N = 146) had two automated and two manual ELISAs completed. Overall, interpretations were discordant for 16 (11%) subjects. Excluding one subject with indeterminate results, 7 (4.8%) subjects had discordant automated interpretations and 10 (6.9%) subjects had discordant manual interpretations (p = 0.17). Quantitative variability was not uniform; within-subject variability was greater with higher IFN-γ measurements and with manual ELISAs. For subjects with mean TB Responses ±0.25 IU/mL of the 0.35 IU/mL cutoff, the within-subject standard deviation for two manual tests was 0.27 (CI95 = 0.22-0.37) IU/mL vs. 0.09 (CI95 = 0.07-0.12) IU/mL for two automated tests.
conclusionQFT-GIT ELISA automation may reduce variability near the test cutoff. Methodological differences should be considered when interpreting and using IFN-γ release assays (IGRAs).
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.