Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32855748›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale2020

Comparative Evaluation and Measure of Accuracy of ELISAs, CLIAs, and ECLIAs for the Detection of HIV Infection among Blood Donors in China.

Le Chang, Junpeng Zhao, Fei Guo, Huimin Ji, Lu Zhang, Xinyi Jiang, Lunan Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Le ChangNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Junpeng ZhaoNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8208-1718
Fei GuoNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Huimin JiNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Lu ZhangNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xinyi JiangNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Lunan WangNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3163-7891
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the only serological method approved for blood screening in China. Automated chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) had been used in clinical laboratories but not applied to screen HIV among blood donors. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ELISA, CLIA, and ECLIA, focusing on the feasibility of CLIA/ECLIA for blood screening.

method1029 blood donations from 14 blood centers screened by ELISA were enrolled in the study. All plasma samples were tested by eight ELISA assays in 16 blood centers, followed by the detection of CLIA and ECLIA methods in the National Center for Clinical Laboratories (NCCL), further confirmed by nucleic acid testing (NAT) and Western blot (WB).

resultsOf 1029 samples, 136 were confirmed as HIV positive. CLIA and ECLIA assay had similar sensitivities with ELISAs but showed higher specificity (CLIA: 99.1%, 885/893; ECLIA: 99.0%, 884/893), concordance rate (CLIA: 99.2%, 1021/1029; ECLIA: 99.1%, 1020/1029), and positive predictive value (PPV) (CLIA: 94.4%, 136/144; ECLIA: 93.8%, 136/145) than most of ELISA kits (>5 ELISAs) (

conclusionCompared with ELISA, CLIA and ECLIA are more specific and accurate in detecting HIV antibody/antigen and can keep more nonspecifically reactive donors detected by ELISA. CLIA and ECLIA can be used for the improvement of serological blood screening strategy to avoid the unnecessary loss of blood donors.

Identifiers

PMID32855748
PMCPMC7443234
OpenAlexW3049048155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.