ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2014
Evaluation of an antigen-antibody "combination" enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infections.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Performance of ElecsysDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a recombinant multiepitope antigen for diagnosis of hepatitis C virus: A lower cost alternative for antigen production.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevelopment of "combination" assays detecting in parallel, within a single test, Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) antigens and antibodies, not only reduces the window period in HCV-infection but also costs. Reduction of costs is important for developing countries where money and personal resources are limited.
methodsWe compared the Monolisa® HCV Antigen-Antibody Ultra (Bio-Rad Laboratories Limited, Marnes La Coquette, France) with the AXSYM HCV version 3.0 (Abbot Diagnostics, Germany)-the latter assay detecting only antibodies to HCV. Seventy three HCV-PCR positive and negative samples were tested.
resultsAlthough the two assays showed comparable results, two samples from a bone marrow transplant (BMT) patient of viral loads 7.8 × 105 and 8.9 × 106 IU/mL could not be detected by the Monolisa® HCV Antigen-Antibody Ultra assay. Failure to detect the two samples with viral loads considered above threshold of detection for antigen proteins suggested a lack of sensitivity by this assay to discover viral capsid protein in patient samples. Genotyping of these samples revealed genotype 1b, a HCV-subtype which is widespread and should thus be easily detected.
conclusionWe conclude that although this assay depicts high sensitivity and specificity in detecting antibodies to HCV, it seems not to add further benefit in our study population to detect HCV infections by enhanced sensitivity due the potential contingency to trace viral capsid antigens.
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.