ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Clinical diagnostic performance of light-initiated chemiluminescent assay compared with the Architect chemiluminescence immunoassay for detection of HCV antibody.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity of current laboratory methods for brucellosis diagnosis at endemic foci.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- A new double-antigen sandwich test based on the light-initiated chemiluminescent assay for detecting anti-hepatitis C virus antibodies with high sensitivity and specificity.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Analytical and clinical evaluation of the light-initiated chemiluminescent assays for measurement of human thyroid hormones.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Performance characteristics of the light-initiated chemiluminescent assay for quantitative determination of progesterone.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- A hook-effect-free homogeneous light-initiated chemiluminescence assay: is it reliable for screening and the quantification of the hepatitis B surface antigen?Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Clinical diagnostic performance of light-initiated chemiluminescent assay compared with the Architect chemiluminescence immunoassay for detection of HCV antibody.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) test had been approved as a preliminary screening test for HCV infection. Light-initiated chemiluminescent assay (LiCA) was a homogenous method. We aimed to assess the clinical diagnostic performance of LiCA and compare it with that of chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) which was widely used in clinical laboratories.
methodsA total of 10 772 patients from the Peking University Third Hospital were enrolled. The serum samples were detected on the ChIVD LiCA500 and Abbott Architect i2000SR platforms. Recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) and HCV RNA assay were used for confirmation.
resultsThe negative agreement rate between ChIVD LiCA anti-HCV assay and Abbott Architect anti-HCV assay was 99.91%, the positive agreement rate was 37.31%, the total agreement rate was 98.74%, and the kappa coefficient (κ) was 0.519. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ChIVD LiCA anti-HCV assay were 96.39%, 99.95%, 89.58%, and 99.97%, respectively, which were superior to those of Abbott Architect anti-HCV assay (93.98%, 99.25%, 51.90%, and 99.95%, respectively).
conclusionChIVD LiCA anti-HCV assay was a highly sensitive, specific homogenous method with good diagnostic performance, and was applicable for the routine screening of HCV infection in clinical laboratories.
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.