Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28397024›Full record

ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2017

Performance of Hepatitis E Virus (HEV)-antibody tests: a comparative analysis based on samples from individuals with direct contact to domestic pigs or wild boar in Germany.

Frauke Mara Sommerkorn, Birgit Schauer, Thomas Schreiner, Helmut Fickenscher, Andi Krumbholz

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The global epidemiology of hepatitis E virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pathogenic mechanisms and current epidemiological status of HEV infection in asymptomatic blood donors and patients with chronic diseases.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Frauke Mara SommerkornInstitut für Infektionsmedizin, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel und Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Brunswiker Straße 4, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Birgit SchauerInstitut für Community Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Thomas SchreinerLehrstuhl für Marketing and Customer Insight, Universität Hamburg, Welckerstraße 8, 20354, Hamburg, Germany.
Helmut FickenscherInstitut für Infektionsmedizin, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel und Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Brunswiker Straße 4, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Andi KrumbholzInstitut für Infektionsmedizin, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel und Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Brunswiker Straße 4, 24105, Kiel, Germany. krumbholz@infmed.uni-kiel.de.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Europe, Hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotype 3 causes most human infections, and domestic pigs and wild boar represent the main reservoirs. Contact to these animals represents one source of human infection. However, interpretation of studies is challenged in the absence of a serological gold standard. Hence, this study compared results of different HEV immunoassays. Plasma samples from 139 individuals who had professional contact to pigs (veterinarians, meat inspectors, slaughterhouse workers; n = 114) or hunted regularly (n = 25) were tested with assays specific for HEV IgG, HEV IgM, HEV IgA, and total HEV immunoglobulin as well as for viral RNA. Furthermore, overall HEV IgG was defined (i.e., two of three IgG assays reveal the same result) to compare serological findings. Borderline results were always quoted as positive. For IgG, apparent prevalence was higher in Wantai (48.2%) compared to Euroimmun (11.5%) and Mikrogen assays (17.3%) (p = 0.0001). The overall IgG prevalence was estimated to be 18.7%. For total Ig, Wantai (40.3%) also yielded higher prevalence than Euroimmun (15.8%) (p = 0.0001). The HEV IgM prevalence ranged from 0% (Euroimmun) to 4.3% (Mikrogen). Four percent of individuals tested IgA positive, whilst none harboured HEV RNA. Our results support previous studies that the higher IgG prevalence estimated with the Wantai assay result from a higher sensitivity of this test. However, further studies are needed to verify specificity given the challenge of defining true negative samples. The high percentage of individuals with HEV IgG observed in this study underlines that direct contact to pigs represents a risk factor for HEV infection.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureAdultAgedAnimalsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleGermanyHepatitis AntibodiesHepatitis EHepatitis E virusHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MMaleHepatitis AntibodiesImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MRNA, ViralAnti-HEV immunoglobulinesComparativeOccupational contactZoonosis

Identifiers

PMID28397024
OpenAlexW2606870271

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.