ArticleJournal of laboratory physicians
Evaluation of screening effectiveness of hepatitis B surface antigen and anti-HCV rapid test kits in Pakistan.
Article in Journal of laboratory physicians. 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.
- Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of Hepatitis C virus infection in the Upper East Region of Ghana; a community-based cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Epidemiology of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Virus among Beta-Thalassemia Major Patients in Pakistan.Journal of laboratory physicians · 2021Review
- Seroprevalence of Transfusion-Transmitted Infections among Voluntary and Replacement Blood Donors at the Peshawar Regional Blood Centre, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Journal of laboratory physicians · 2021Article
- Molecular and genetic characterization of hepatitis B virus among multitransfused thalassaemia patients in Islamabad, Pakistan.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- A Systematic Review of Transfusion-Transmissible Infections Among Blood Donors and Associated Safety Challenges in Pakistan.Journal of blood medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study was conducted to evaluate the performance and screening effectiveness of commercially available rapid screening kits in comparison with chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Pathology and Blood Transfusion Services, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, PIMS, Islamabad, from January to April 2019. A total of 10 commercially available immunochromatographic test (ICT) devices and one CLIA kit (LIAISON XL) were tested for their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy using 100 positive and 100 negative samples each for HBV and HCV, respectively.
resultsThe sensitivities and specificities of ICT kits for hepatitis B surface antigen were 65% and 70% (Hightop), 67% and 85% (RightSign), 62% and 73% (Wondfo), 70% and 80% (Accu-Chek), 68% and 77% (Fastep), 73% and 85% (Abon), 77% and 83% (ImmuMed), 80% and 90% (Insta-Answer), 67% and 81% (BioCheck), and 72% and 83% CTK Biotech, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivities and specificities of different ICT kits for HCV were 69% and 80% (Hightop), 76% and 83% (RightSign), 69% and 81% (Wondfo), 78% and 79% (Accu-Check), 68% and 68% (Fastep), 63% and 73% (Abon), 71% and 70% (ImmuMed), 79% and 68% (Insta-Answer), 62% and 66% (BioChek), and 69% and 78% CTK Biotech, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of Diasorin Liaison Murex assay for both HBV and HCV were found to be 100% when compared with PCR. The PPV, NPV and Accuracy were determined accordingly.
conclusionRapid testing ICT devices for both HBV and HCV available in Pakistan were found to have a variable degree of sensitivity and specificity when compared with CLIA and PCR. Comparatively expensive but quality methods are more reliable as compared to rapid devices.
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.