ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2017
The Performance of the Abbott i2000 for Measuring Serum Markers of Infectious Diseases.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analytical performance evaluation of MAGLUMI HBeAg and anti-HBe chemiluminescence immunoassays and comparison with the Abbott assays.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Dried blood spot sampling as an alternative for the improvement of hepatitis B and C diagnosis in key populations.World journal of hepatology · 2021Article
- Different Re-centrifugation Conditions for Infectious Disease Screening Using the Abbott I2000.Current medical science · 2020Article
- Evaluate performance of the Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay assay for detection of syphilis infection in Chinese blood donors.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
- Clinical diagnostic performance of light-initiated chemiluminescent assay compared with the Architect chemiluminescence immunoassay for detection of HCV antibody.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- The characteristics of screening and confirmatory test results for HIV in Xi'an, China.PloS one · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, there is a trend that the chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassays (CMIA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassays (ECIA) technology gradually replacing the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). But the performance such as the limit of quantitation (LOQ), precision, linear range of CMIA, or ECIA for serum markers of infectious diseases has rarely been reported.
methodsUsing proficiency testing samples and standard materials, we confirmed the LOQ of the ELISA and the precision, linear range, LOQ, and instrument biases of the Abbott i2000 for eight serum markers. We used the Abbott i2000 and ELISAs to assess five HIV samples; the researchers were blinded to the true status of the samples.
resultsFor the Abbott i2000, the coefficients of variation (CV) for the low, medium, and high concentration samples ranged from 1.06 to 12.74%, which were less than the allowable error; the linear ranges of HBsAg and HBsAb were 0.66-304.11 IU/ml and 8.16-1205.9 mIU/ml, respectively. For the Abbott i2000, the LOQs of HBsAg, HBsAb, HBeAg, HBeAb, HBcAb, anti-HCV, anti-TP, and anti-HIV were 0.026 IU/ml, 4 mIU/ml, 0.14 NCU/ml, 0.56 NCU/ml, 0.99 NCU/ml, 0.5 NCU/ml, 8.8 mIU/ml, and 1.92 NCU/ml, respectively, and these values were 0.16 IU/ml, 6.97 mIU/ml, 1.16 NCU/ml, 1.63 NCU/ml, 1.79 NCU/ml, 1.03 NCU/ml, 8.33 mIU/ml, and 1.3 NCU/ml, respectively, for the ELISA. When five HIV samples were blindly assessed, two cases were missed by the Abbott i2000 and the ELISA results were consistent with the expected results.
conclusionsThe Abbott i2000 performed significantly better than the ELISA on HBV and HCV screening; however, for anti-TP and anti-HIV, the ELISA remained the preferred method.
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.