ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Assessing Immunity to Rubella Virus: a Plea for Standardization of IgG (Immuno)assays.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anti-Rubella antibodies seroprevalence among pregnant women in South-Western Romania.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Commercial Immunoassays for Rubella Virus IgG Detection in Low-Antibody Sera Using a Recombinant Immunoblot as a Reference Method.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Granuloma and persistent detection of wild-type rubella virus in an immunocompromised patient.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Serosurveillance for Measles and Rubella.Vaccines · 2024Review
- The Standardization and Control of Serology and Nucleic Acid Testing for Infectious Diseases.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- Pitfalls of rubella serology while on the brink of elimination: evaluation of national data, Belgium, 2017.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2021Article
- Seroprevalences of antibodies against ToRCH infectious pathogens in women of childbearing age residing in Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Poland, Turkey and China.Epidemiology and infection · 2020Article
- Recent trends in seroprevalence of rubella in Korean women of childbearing age: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Performance of Zika Assays in the Context of Toxoplasma gondii, Parvovirus B19, Rubella Virus, and Cytomegalovirus (TORCH) Diagnostic Assays.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Response to third rubella vaccine dose.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Article
- Characterization of rubella-specific humoral immunity following two doses of MMR vaccine using proteome microarray technology.PloS one · 2017Article
- Impact of the two-dose rubella vaccination regimen on incidence of rubella seronegativity in gravidae aged 25 years and younger.PloS one · 2017Article
- Where to Now for Standardization of Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunity to rubella virus (RV) is commonly determined by measuring specific immunoglobulin G (RV IgG). However, RV IgG results and their interpretation may vary, depending on the immunoassay, even though most commercial immunoassays (CIAs) have been calibrated against an international standard and results are reported in international units per milliliter. A panel of 322 sera collected from pregnant women that tested negative or equivocal for RV IgG in a prior test (routine screening) was selected. This panel was tested with two reference tests, immunoblotting (IB) and neutralization (Nt), and with 8 CIAs widely used in Europe. IB and Nt gave concordant results on 267/322 (82.9%) sera. Of these, 85 (26.4%) sera were negative and 182 (56.5%) sera were positive for both tests. All 85 IB/Nt-negative samples were classified as negative with all CIAs. Of the 182 IB/Nt-positive samples, 25.3 to 61.5% were classified as equivocal and 6 to 64.8% were classified as positive with the CIAs. Wide variations in titers in international units per milliliter were observed. In our series, more than half of the women considered susceptible to RV based on CIA results tested positive for RV antibodies by IB/Nt. Our data suggest that (i) sensitivity of CIAs could be increased by considering equivocal results as positive and (ii) the definition of immunity to RV as the 10-IU/ml usual cutoff as well as the use of quantitative results for clinical decisions may warrant reconsideration. A better standardization of CIAs for RV IgG determination is needed.
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.