ArticleScientific reports2017
Evaluation of the Elecsys syphilis immunoassay for routine screening of serum samples in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening STD Screening Programs: Comprehensive Evaluation of High-Throughput Immunoassays for HIV and Syphilis Detection.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- 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
- Comparison of Roche Elecsys and Sysmex HISCL immunoassays for the screening of common blood-borne pathogens.Annals of translational medicine · 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
14 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the performance of the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys immunoassay for the detection of Treponema pallidum specific antibodies in patient serum samples with that of the Abbott Laboratories Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and the InTec and KHB enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, which are commonly used in China. We tested 13,767 serum samples collected from 13 independent laboratories throughout China, which included samples from 999 previously confirmed syphilis cases and 158 'borderline' samples previously identified using the Architect, InTec, and KHB tests. The Mikrogen Syphilis Immunoblot was used to confirm positive test results. The consistency between the four different assays was 100%. The sensitivity of Elecsys immunoassay was 100% versus 98.26% for Architect, 99.11% for InTec; and 98.56% for KHB. The specificity of the Elecsys immunoassay was 99.81% versus 99.74% for Architect; 99.93% versus 99.80% for InTec; and 99.85% versus 99.77% for KHB. For borderline samples, the Elecsys immunoassay yielded no false-negative results and fewer false-positive results, compared to the other tests. Considering the ease-of-use, automation, high speed, and high throughput capacity of the Elecsys assay, the higher sensitivity and specificity indicate it is superior for routine screening of serum samples for syphilis diagnosis.
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.