Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962091›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016

Comparison of the Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Spot and CMV QuantiFERON Cell-Mediated Immune Assays in CMV-Seropositive and -Seronegative Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women.

Alda Saldan, Gabriella Forner, Carlo Mengoli, Daniel Tinto, Loredana Fallico, Marta Peracchi, Nadia Gussetti, Giorgio Palù, Davide Abate

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Potential Biomarkers for Predicting Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Testing for Cytomegalovirus in Pregnancy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alda SaldanDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Gabriella FornerDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Carlo MengoliDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Daniel TintoDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Loredana FallicoDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Marta PeracchiDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Nadia GussettiPadua Reference Center for Infections in Pregnancy, Padua General Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Giorgio PalùDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy giorgio.palu@unipd.it davide.abate@unipd.it.
Davide AbateDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy giorgio.palu@unipd.it davide.abate@unipd.it.
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause of congenital infection leading to birth defects and sensorineural anomalies, including deafness. Recently, cell-mediated immunity (CMI) in pregnant women has been shown to correlate with congenital CMV transmission. In this study, two interferon gamma release assays (IGRA), the CMV enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT) and CMV QuantiFERON assays, detecting CMV-specific CMI were compared. These assays were performed for 80 CMV-infected (57 primarily and 23 nonprimarily) pregnant women and 115 controls, including 89 healthy CMV-seropositive pregnant women without active CMV infection, 15 CMV-seronegative pregnant women, and 11 seropositive or seronegative nonpregnant women. Statistical tests, including frequency distribution analysis, nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test, Wilcoxon rank sum test for equality on unmatched data, and lowess smoothing local regression, were employed to determine statistical differences between groups and correlation between the assays. The CMV ELISPOT and CMV QuantiFERON assay data were not normally distributed and did not display equal variance. The CMV ELISPOT but not CMV QuantiFERON assay displayed significant higher values for primarily CMV-infected women than for the healthy seropositive pregnant and nonpregnant groups (P = 0.0057 and 0.0379, respectively) and those with nonprimary infections (P = 0.0104). The lowess local regression model comparing the assays on an individual basis showed a value bandwidth of 0.8. Both assays were highly accurate in discriminating CMV-seronegative pregnant women. The CMV ELISPOT assay was more effective than CMV-QuantiFERON in differentiating primary from the nonprimary infections. A substantial degree of variability exists between CMV ELISPOT and CMV QuantiFERON assay results for CMV-seropositive pregnant women.

Indexed as

AdultCytomegalovirus InfectionsEnzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayFemaleHumansInterferon-gamma Release TestsPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26962091
PMCPMC4844750
OpenAlexW2342607652

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.