ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2015
Application of a commercial immunoblot to define EBV IgG seroprofiles.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmunoblot (IB) techniques using different Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antigens have been applied for detecting specific antibodies, making possible to obtain EBV seroprofiles in a single determination. The aim of this study was to evaluate a commercial IB for the detection of EBV-specific IgG (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany).
methodsA total of 117 samples classified as EBV primary recent infections (n = 70), past infections (n = 29), or not infected (n = 18) have been used. The samples were characterized by immunofluorescence, by testing EBV capsid antigens IgM and IgG (using indirect approaches) and EBV nuclear antigen (by anticomplement technique; Meridian Bioscience Inc.).
resultsUsing the cut-off value as defined by the IB manufacturer, the concordance, relative sensitivity, and relative specificity were 85.5 (100/117), 94.3% (66/70), and 72.3% (34/47), respectively. If a corrected cut-off value was considered to classify the samples, the corresponding corrected figures were 89.7, 88.6, and 91.5%, respectively.
conclusionBeing a useful serological diagnostic tool, IB for testing EBV IgG seems to be an adequate approach to define EBV seroprofiles. However, efforts to better define the cut-off value should be made in order to improve the performance of the assay in evaluation.
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.