ArticleMedicine2017
The analyzation and clinical evaluation of ECLIA and CMIA in the detection of Treponema pallidum.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance ofSexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Evaluation of rapid diagnostic test kits for detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparison and evaluation of Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
- Yield of screening blood work and MRI of the brain and orbits in the work-up of unilateral chronic optic neuropathy.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical application value of electrochemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer (ECLIA) and chemiluminescent magnetic microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) in the detection of Treponema pallidum (TP).A total of 1225 patients in Peking University Third Hospital was enrolled from June 2014 to October 2014. ECLIA and CMIA were applied to detect the serum anti-TP. The positive rate was analyzed. RIBA was taken as a golden standard to evaluate the sensitivity, the specificity, the positive predictive value, the negative predictive value, and the accuracy of ECLIA and CMIA. A correlation analysis between 2 assays was conducted, and that between assay and RIBA. We also evaluate the clinical value of TPPA in the detection of T pallidum.The positive rate of CMIA and ECLIA is 10.63% and 9.89%, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference (P > .05). For CMIA, ECLIA, and TPPA, the sensitivity is 99.16%, 99.16%, and 99.16%, the specificity is 98.99%, 99.82%, and 100%, the positive predictive value is 91.47%, 98.33%, and 100%, the negative predictive value is 99.91%, 99.91%, and 99.91%, the coincidence rate is 99.01% (Kappa = 0.895), 99.75% (Kappa = 0.997), and 99.92% (Kappa = 0.998), respectively.The result shows high correlation between ECLIA and CMIA. Both have high sensitivity and specificity and can be used as screening tests for the diagnosis of T pallidum in common condition.
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.