ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Comparison of Roche Elecsys and Sysmex HISCL immunoassays for the screening of common blood-borne pathogens.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A performance evaluation of chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays on the Sysmex CN-6500 haemostasis analyser.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2021Article
- Analytical Performance of the Sysmex HISCL HBsAg Assay and Comparison with the Roche Elecsys HBsAg II Quant Assay in the Quantification of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Performance Evaluation ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a comprehensive comparison in the sensitivity, specificity, dilution sensitivity, and precision between two immunoassay systems, Roche Elecsys Cobas e 601 and Sysmex HISCL 5000, for the detection of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), treponemal antibodies (anti-TP), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
methodsOne thousand unselected samples and 100 reserved weak reactive samples were tested by the two systems. Sensitivity and specificity were then calculated for each system. Seroconversion panels were used to assess the sensitivity in early stage detection. Dilution sensitivity was evaluated by dilution tests of several seroconversion panel samples. Evaluation of within-run and intermediate precision was conducted following EP-15A protocol.
resultsThe consistency rates of the two systems for the detection of four pathogens were all over 99% among unselected samples. Both Elecsys and HISCL were observed to have high sensitivity and specificity in unselected samples and weak reactive samples. Seroconversion panel tests showed that Elecsys could identify positive results earlier than HISCL in HBsAg (1 out of 4), anti-TP (1 out of 2) and HIV (1 out of 12) panels. The results of the anti-HCV panels were comparable. In dilution tests, Elecsys could detect lower concentrations than HISCL in two anti-HCV samples and one anti-TP sample. The two systems had similar performance in dilution tests of HBsAg and HIV samples. Both Elecsys and HISCL had qualified intra-assay and inter-assay precision.
conclusionsBoth Elecsys and HISCL have good performance in the screening of four common bloodborne pathogens. The two systems are comparable and considered adequate for clinical use.
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.