ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2018
Comparison of chemiluminescence immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and passive agglutination for diagnosis of
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- In the shadow of COVID-19: changes in the seroprevalence of pediatric Mycoplasma pneumoniae.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Immunochromatographic Strip and a Magnetic Chemiluminescence Immunoassay for Detection ofVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Application of Protein Expression inScientifica · 2024Review
- Spanish HCMV Seroprevalence in the 21st Century.Viruses · 2023Article
- On summary ROC curve for dichotomous diagnostic studies: an application to meta-analysis of COVID-19.Journal of applied statistics · 2023Article
- Detection of Circulating VZV-Glycoprotein E-Specific Antibodies by Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA) for Varicella-Zoster Diagnosis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Automatic label-free immunoassay with high sensitivity for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein based on chemiluminescent magnetic beads.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2021Article
- Current status, advances, challenges and perspectives on biosensors for COVID-19 diagnosis in resource-limited settings.Sensors and actuators reports · 2021Article
- Preparation of Luciferase-fused Peptides for Immunoassay of Amyloid Beta.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2021Article
- Predictive Factors of the Responses to Treatment ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Correlation of Automated Chemiluminescent Method with Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Antibody Titers in Convalescent COVID-19 Plasma Samples: Development of Rapid, Cost-Effective Semi-Quantitative Diagnostic Methods.Journal of blood medicine · 2021Article
- Review of Current COVID-19 Diagnostics and Opportunities for Further Development.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- Impact of air pollutants on pediatric admissions for Mycoplasma pneumonia: a cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Ultrasensitive haptoglobin biomarker detection based on amplified chemiluminescence of magnetite nanoparticles.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2020Article
- Joint Detection of Serum IgM/IgG Antibody Is an Important Key to Clinical Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2020Article
- High Seroprevalence ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the performance of chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and passive agglutination (PA) method in detecting
methodsThis study enrolled a total of 280 patients who were consecutively seen at the Nanfang Hospital of the Southern Medical University in Guangdong Province, China, between August and December 2016. Serum was collected and examined by CLIA, ELISA, and PA, respectively.
resultsThere were 180 positive (64.3%) and 100 negative cases (35.7%) by PA, 184 positive (65.7%) and 96 negative cases (34.3%) by CLIA MP-immunoglobulin (Ig) M, 89 positive (31.8%) and 191 negative cases (68.2%) by CLIA MP-IgG, 196 positive (70%) and 84 negative cases (30%) by ELISA MP-IgM, and 114 positive (40.7%) and 166 negative cases (59.3%) by ELISA MP-IgG. Patients were allocated to two groups based on PA results. In PA-negative group (≤1:40), the positive rates of MP-IgM by CLIA were 22.8% and 51.2% and by ELISA were 33.3% and 53.5%, respectively. In the PA-positive group (1:80 to ≥1:1,280), MP-IgM negative cases showed a decreasing trend: 40%, 18%, 14.3%, 10%, and 6.7% (CLIA), and 43.3%, 8%, 14.3%, 5%, and 6.7% (ELISA). The consistency between CLIA/ELISA MP-IgM, -IgG, and -IgG+MP-IgM was >92% for negative cases and >75% for positive cases, resulting in an overall consistency rate >88%. The kappa coefficients were 0.804, 0.763, and 0.806, respectively.
conclusionCLIA and ELISA have a higher sensitivity compared with PA. CLIA has a high concordance with ELISA. Moreover, CLIA has a higher specificity and sensitivity for the detection of IgM and IgG and should be used for the clinical diagnosis of MP infection.
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.