ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2021
Pitfalls of rubella serology while on the brink of elimination: evaluation of national data, Belgium, 2017.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and management of rubella susceptibility in healthcare workers in Italy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Vaccine: X · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Eight Commercial Assays for the Detection of Rubella Virus-Specific IgM Antibodies.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundIn Belgium, rubella serology is frequently requested in women of childbearing age, despite high vaccination coverage and a near-absence of congenital rubella cases. Different test kits are available and should be standardised by an international standard preparation.AimTo analyse and compare rubella serology practices in Belgian laboratories.MethodsAs part of the mandatory External Quality Assessment programme for rubella serology in Belgium, the national public health institute, Sciensano, sent a voluntary questionnaire concerning anti-rubella IgM/IgG analyses in women aged 15 to 45 years in 2017 to 130 laboratories.ResultsThe questionnaire response rate was 83.8% (109/130). The majority of 169,494 IgG analyses were performed on Roche (55%), Abbott (17%) and Diasorin (13%) analysers. Not all laboratories used the proposed international cut-off of 10 IU/mL. Assumed median seroprevalence ranged from 76.3% with Liaison (Diasorin) to 96.3% with Modular (Roche). Despite very low rubella incidence in Belgium, 93 laboratories performed 85,957 IgM analyses, with 748 positive and 394 grey zone results. The National Reference Centre for Measles, Mumps and Rubella virus and the National Reference Centre for Congenital infections did not confirm any positive rubella cases in 2017.ConclusionThis retrospective analysis shows that rubella serology results may differ considerably according to the assay used. It is therefore important to use the same test when comparing results or performing follow-up testing. The number of anti-rubella IgM analyses was very high. Incorrect use of IgM for screening women of childbearing age can lead to unwarranted anxiety and overuse of confirmation 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.