Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27556482›Full record

ArticleViruses2016

Monitoring of Anti-Hepatitis E Virus Antibody Seroconversion in Asymptomatically Infected Blood Donors: Systematic Comparison of Nine Commercial Anti-HEV IgM and IgG Assays.

Tanja Vollmer, Juergen Diekmann, Matthias Eberhardt, Cornelius Knabbe, Jens Dreier

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Hepatitis E Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients in Turkey.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cell Cultures for Virology: Usability, Advantages, and Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tanja VollmerHerz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 32545 Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. tvollmer@hdz-nrw.de.
Juergen DiekmannHerz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 32545 Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. jdiekmann@hdz-nrw.de.
Matthias EberhardtTMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH, 34117 Kassel, Germany. dr.eberhardt@blutspende-kassel.de.
Cornelius KnabbeHerz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 32545 Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. cknabbe@hdz-nrw.de.
Jens DreierHerz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 32545 Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. jdreier@hdz-nrw.de.
Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis of hepatitis E virus (HEV) is usually determined serologically by detection of the presence of immunoglobulin (Ig)M antibodies or rising anti-HEV IgG titers. However, serological assays have demonstrated a significant variation in their sensitivities and specificities. In this study, we present the systematic comparison of different immunological anti-HEV assays using complete seroconversion panels of 10 virologically confirmed HEV genotype 3 infected individuals. Assay sensitivities were further evaluated by testing serially diluted World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent for hepatitis E virus antibody and one patient sample infected with HEV genotype 3. Anti-HEV IgM and IgG antibody presence was determined using the immunological assays Wantai HEV IgM/IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Sanbio, Uden, The Netherlands), recomWell HEV IgM/IgG (Mikrogen, Neuried, Germany), HEV IgM ELISA 3.0, HEV ELISA, HEV ELISA 4.0, Assure HEV IgM Rapid Test (all MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch Cedex, France) and Anti-HEV ELISA (IgM/IgG, Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The assays showed differences regarding their analytical and diagnostic sensitivities, with anti-HEV IgM assays (n = 5) being more divergent compared to anti-HEV IgG (n = 4) assays in this study. Considerable variations were observed particularly for the detection period of IgM antibodies. This is the first study systematically characterizing serologic assays on the basis of seroconversion panels, providing sample conformity for a conclusive comparison. Future studies should include the assay comparison covering the four different genotypes.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsSeroconversionAntibodies, ViralHepatitis EHepatitis E virusHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin Mhepatitis E virusIgGIgMsensitivityseroconversionserology

Identifiers

PMID27556482
PMCPMC4997594
OpenAlexW2510872658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.