ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2021
The Standardization and Control of Serology and Nucleic Acid Testing for Infectious Diseases.
Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Screening of Hepatitis C virus in blood donors over 11 years].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- A broadly applicable split-luciferase biosensor approach for rapid antibody detection in emerging infectious diseases.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- The impact of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid metagenomics next-generation sequencing on the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected pulmonary infection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- A modified quality control protocol for infectious disease serology based on the Westgard rules.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The etiological diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in suspected community-acquired pneumonia.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Laboratory development of an RNA quantitative RT-PCR assay reporting in international units for hepatitis D virus.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Monoclonal Antibodies as SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standards: Experimental Validation and Broader Implications for Correlates of Protection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Advancing Luciferase-Based Antibody Immunoassays to Next-Generation Mix and Read Testing.Biosensors · 2023Review
- Improving Suspected Pulmonary Infection Diagnosis by Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing: a Multicenter Retrospective Study.Microbiology spectrum · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historically, the detection of antibodies against infectious disease agents was achieved using test systems that utilized biological functions such as neutralization, complement fixation, hemagglutination, or visualization of binding of antibodies to specific antigens, by testing doubling dilutions of the patient sample to determine an endpoint. These test systems have since been replaced by automated platforms, many of which have been integrated into general medical pathology. Methods employed to standardize and control clinical chemistry testing have been applied to these serology tests. However, there is evidence that these methods are not suitable for infectious disease serology. An overriding reason is that, unlike testing for an inert chemical, testing for specific antibodies to infectious disease agents is highly variable; the measurand for each test system varies in choice of antigen, antibody classes/subclasses, modes of detection, and assay kinetics, and individuals' immune responses vary with time after exposure, individual immune-competency, nutrition, treatment, and exposure to variable circulating sero- or genotypes or organism mutations. Therefore, unlike that of inert chemicals, the quantification of antibodies cannot be standardized using traditional methods. However, there is evidence that the quantification of nucleic acid testing, reporting results in international units, has been successful across many viral load tests. Similarly, traditional methods used to control clinical chemistry testing, such as Westgard rules, are not appropriate for serology testing for infectious diseases, mainly due to variability due to frequent reagent lot changes. This review investigates the reasons why standardization and control of infectious diseases should be further investigated and more appropriate guidelines should be implemented.
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.