Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34705533›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022

Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Eight Commercial Assays for the Detection of Rubella Virus-Specific IgM Antibodies.

Joanne Hiebert, Vanessa Zubach, Carmen L Charlton, Jayne Fenton, Graham A Tipples, Kevin Fonseca, Alberto Severini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Joanne HiebertViral Exanthemata and STD Section, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canadagrid.415368.d, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Vanessa ZubachViral Exanthemata and STD Section, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canadagrid.415368.d, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Carmen L CharltonPublic Health Laboratory, Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jayne FentonPublic Health Laboratory, Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Graham A TipplesPublic Health Laboratory, Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kevin FonsecaPublic Health Laboratory, Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Alberto SeveriniViral Exanthemata and STD Section, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canadagrid.415368.d, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0844-2634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rubella and congenital rubella syndrome are caused by the rubella virus and are preventable through vaccination, making disease eradication possible. Monitoring of progress toward global eradication and local elimination requires high-quality, sensitive disease surveillance that includes laboratory confirmation of cases. Previous evaluations of anti-rubella IgM detection methods resulted in the broad adoption of the Enzygnost (most recently manufactured by Siemens) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits within WHO's global measles and rubella laboratory network, but they have been discontinued. This study evaluated seven comparable ELISAs from six manufacturers (Trinity Biotech, Euroimmun, Clin-Tech, NovaTec and Virion\Serion) as well as one automated chemiluminescent assay (CLIA) from DiaSorin. These assays include three IgM capture assays and five indirect ELISAs. A panel of 238 sera was used for the evaluation that included 38 archival rubella IgM-positive sera and 200 sera collected from patients with symptomatically similar diseases, such as measles, dengue, parvovirus B19 infection, and roseola. With this panel of sera, the sensitivity of the methods ranged from 63.2% to 100% and the specificity from 80.0% to 99.5%. No single method had both sensitivity and specificity of >90%, unless sera with equivocal results were considered presumptively positive. Some assays, particularly the Serion ELISA, had a large number of false positives with parvovirus B19 IgM-positive sera as well as sera from confirmed measles cases. The performance characteristics identified in this evaluation serve as a reminder to not rely solely on rubella IgM results for case confirmation in elimination settings.

Indexed as

MeaslesRubellaAntibodies, ViralEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin MRubella virusSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin MCLIAclinical accuracyEIAELISAIgMkit performancerubellarubella IgM serologysensitivityserologyspecificity

Identifiers

PMID34705533
PMCPMC8769748

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.