ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Comparison and evaluation of Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening STD Screening Programs: Comprehensive Evaluation of High-Throughput Immunoassays for HIV and Syphilis Detection.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Assessment of recombinant antigens Tp0100 and Tp1016 of Treponema pallidum for serological diagnosis of syphilis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Comparison and evaluation of Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory tests play an important role in the diagnosis of syphilis. This study aimed to compare and assess the performance of the Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) and the ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay (LICA) in the detection of Treponema pallidum (TP) antibody.
methodsA total of 10 498 serum samples were detected with two assays, and the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) and recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) methods were used for confirmation. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA were calculated. The coincidence rate between two assays was also evaluated. The causes of false positive and false negative of two assays were studied.
resultsFor the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA, the sensitivity was 94.44% and 98.15%, the specificity was 99.89% and 99.81%, the positive predictive value was 93.29% and 88.83%, and the negative predictive value was 99.91% and 99.97%, respectively. The coincidence rate between Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA was 99.26%, and κ value was .790. The disease of infertility, hypertensive disease, liver disease, and cancer were the common causes of false positive in both assays, while infertility was also the main reason lead to false negative.
conclusionOur results demonstrated that the Abbott CMIA and ChIVD LICA generally had high sensitivity and specificity and therefore may be suitable for the detection of TP antibody and screening for syphilis.
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.