ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Multilaboratory Assessment of Epstein-Barr Virus Serologic Assays: the Case for Standardization.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Achieving control of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the role of Epstein-Barr virus-based screening and vaccines.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- A novel multiplex approach for the comprehensive analysis of the Epstein-Barr virus-specific humoral immune response.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Web of Science-Based Visualization of Mapping Global Scientific Production on Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Autoimmune Diseases: A Bibliometric Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Causal association of antibody-mediated immune responses to infectious disease agents with lung cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Performance and Operational Feasibility of Epstein-Barr Virus-Based Screening for Detection of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Direct Comparison of Two Alternative Approaches.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Recommendations for Epstein-Barr virus-based screening for nasopharyngeal cancer in high- and intermediate-risk regions.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Utility of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibodies as screening markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a narrative review.Annals of nasopharynx cancer · 2022Article
- Identifying Epstein-Barr virus peptide sequences associated with differential IgG antibody response.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Performance of Plasma HSP90α, Serum EBV VCA IgA Antibody and Plasma EBV DNA for the Diagnosis and Prognosis Prediction of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Chemiluminescence Immunoassays on VCA-IgA and EBNA1-IgA Antibodies of Epstein-Barr Virus in Diagnosing Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
IgA antibodies targeting Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) have been proposed for screening for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, methods differ, and the antigens used in these assays differ considerably between laboratories. To enable formal comparisons across a range of established EBV serology assays, we created a panel of 66 pooled serum samples and 66 pooled plasma samples generated from individuals with a broad range of IgA antibody levels. Aliquots from these panels were distributed to six laboratories and were tested by 26 assays measuring antibodies against VCA, EBNA1, EA-EBNA1, Zta, or EAd antigens. We estimated the correlation between assay pairs using Spearman coefficients (continuous measures) and percentages of agreement (positive versus negative, using predefined positivity cutoffs by each assay developer/manufacturer). While strong correlations were observed between some assays, considerable differences were also noted, even for assays that targeted the same protein. For VCA-IgA assays in serum, two distinct clusters were identified, with a median Spearman coefficient of 0.41 (range, 0.20 to 0.66) across these two clusters. EBNA1-IgA assays in serum grouped into a single cluster with a median Spearman coefficient of 0.79 (range, 0.71 to 0.89). Percentages of agreement differed broadly for both VCA-IgA (12% to 98%) and EBNA1-IgA (29% to 95%) assays in serum. Moderate-to-strong correlations were observed across assays in serum that targeted other proteins (correlations ranged from 0.44 to 0.76). Similar results were noted for plasma. We conclude that standardization of EBV serology assays is needed to allow for comparability of results obtained in different translational research studies across laboratories and populations.
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.