ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2016
Comparison of Elecsys Anti-HCV II Assay With Other HCV Screening Assays.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2016. 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.
- Comparison of a dual antibody and antigen HCV immunoassay to standard of care algorithmic testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the utility of a two-assay serological algorithm for hepatitis C screening in a low prevalence population.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection among Malaysian population.Scientific reports · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEarly detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an important step in preventing progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Serologic assays for anti-HCV antibody are valuable first-line tests in the screening and diagnosis of HCV infection. This study's aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay for HCV screening. DESIGN AND
methodsA total of 1,044 routine sera, 20 known HCV-positive samples, plus 54 preselected weakly positive samples were tested for anti-HCV with Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay, Elecsys Anti-HCV assays, InTec HCV enzymoimmunoassay (EIA), and Livzon Anti-HCV EIA. Interference test was assessed with additional 423 specimens without clinical evidence of HCV infection: preselected HCV weak reactive samples; dialysis samples; anti-HBc (antibody to HBV core antigen) (+), anti-Treponema pallidum (+), and anti-HIV (+) sera; and samples form autoimmune/alcoholic hepatitis or systemic Lupus erythematosus (SLE). Discrepant results were evaluated with recombinant immunoblot assay. The seroconversion panels were evaluated to assess how early each assay could detect HCV infection.
resultsThe specificity (99.81%) of the Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay was less than that with the two EIA comparison methods. However, false-negative results were easily seen in the EIA assays. When serial bleeds of HCV panels were compared with the above-mentioned methods, the assay detected acute HCV infection only 3.5 days after a positive HCV-RNA nucleic acid test and earlier than the comparator assays.
conclusionSensitivities and specificities of the anti-HCV assays were sufficiently high for use in this study. The Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay is suitable for screening and reliable early detection of HCV infection.
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.