ArticleVirusdisease2019
Comparative evaluation of three rapid immunochromatographic test assays with chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay for the detection of hepatitis C virus antibody.
Article in Virusdisease, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Characterization of Dual-Platform Lyophilized Plasma-Based Quality Control Materials for Hepatitis C Virus Antibody Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A review of historical landmarks and pioneering technologies for the diagnosis of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- The COVID-19 wave was already here: High seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff and students in a Cameroon University.Journal of public health in Africa · 2023Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can serve as good alternatives to standard serological assays for hepatitis C virus (HCV) detection in limited resource settings. Aim of this study was to evaluate performance of three Indian manufactured RDTs with chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CLIA) for screening of HCV infection with further evaluation using HCV RNA. Serum samples tested for anti-HCV by CLIA (Architect i1000SR, Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA) were retrieved from - 80 °C and retested for anti-HCV by three RDTs: Alere Trueline (SD Bioline; Haryana, India) (RDT 1), Benesphera HCV Rapid card test (Avantor Performance Materials India Limited; Uttarakhand, India) (RDT 2), AccuTest HCV (Accurex Biomedical Pvt. Ltd.; Mumbai, India) (RDT 3). HCV RNA results were obtained from hospital information system and anti-HCV reactive but RNA negative cases without treatment were considered as either 'false positives' or 'spontaneous clearance of HCV RNA'. Among 86 samples, 75 (87.2%), 49 (57%), 58 (67.4%) and 51 (59.3%) were reactive by CLIA, RDT1, RDT2 and RDT3, respectively. Taking CLIA as reference standard, RDT 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated sensitivity of 65.30%, 77.33% and 68% respectively. Specificity of all three RDTs was 100% with sensitivity of 97.6-100% above signal/cut-off ratio (S/Co) of 6 by CLIA and 88-100% in all HCV RNA positive cases. Sensitivity of RDTs increased from 65.30-77.33 to 72-82.4% when RNA negative/anti-HCV reactive results were considered as non-reactive. The three RDTs have acceptable sensitivity and specificity in anti-HCV detection especially in RNA positive patients that would require treatment for HCV.
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.