ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Antibody Assays for Patients with Scrub Typhus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Serological and Molecular Tests for Detection ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing the diagnosis of scrub typhus with targeted next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Laboratory Analysis of a Scrub Typhus and H1N1 Influenza Co-Infection: A Case Report from Hainan, China.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of a Scoring System to Differentiate Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome from Scrub Typhus.Viruses · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was carried out to evaluate the accuracy of various antibody tests for scrub typhus, namely, the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and four commercial kits (companies A to D). The test accuracy was based on the diagnosis of scrub typhus, as defined by a positive PCR or culture. In total, serum samples from 97 patients with scrub typhus and 200 non-scrub typhus patients were tested. The respective sensitivity and specificity of each test were as follows. For the KCDC IFA, sensitivity and specificity were 55.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.2 to 65.8%) and 94.8% (95% CI, 90.4 to 97.3%) for IgM and 42.3% (95% CI, 32.3 to 52.7%) and 96.3% (95% CI, 92.6 to 98.5%) for IgG, with diagnostic cutoffs of ≥1:16 for IgM and ≥1:256 for IgG. For kit A, the sensitivity and specificity were 70.1% (95% CI, 59.8 to 78.8%) and 74.6% (95% CI, 67.6 to 80.6%) for total immunoglobulins, with a cutoff of ≥1:40. For kit B, the sensitivity and specificity were 64.3% (95% CI, 51.9 to 75.1%) and 94.9% (95% CI, 81.4 to 99.1%) for IgM and 67.1% (95% CI, 54.8 to 77.6%) and 74.4% (95% CI, 57.6 to 86.4%) for IgG. For kit C, the sensitivity and specificity were 53.6% (95% CI, 43.2 to 63.7%) and 99.5% (95% CI, 96.8 to 100%) for IgM and 36.1% (95% CI, 26.8 to 46.5%) and 100% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100%) for IgG. For kit D, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.2% (95% CI, 63.1 to 81.4%) and 89.5% (95% CI, 84.2 to 93.2%) for total immunoglobulins. These results are all unsatisfactory, highlighting an urgent need for the development of more highly sensitive and specific tests.
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.