ArticleViruses2022
Diagnostic Performance of an Automated System for Assaying Anti-Hepatitis E Virus Immunoglobulins M and G Compared with a Conventional Microplate Assay.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the analytical performance of the MAGLUMI HEV IgM and IgG assays for automated detection of HEV antibodies and comparison with the microplate Wantai assay.Virology journal · 2026Article
- Extended Duration of Anti-HEV IgM Seropositivity in Asymptomatic Blood Donors: Implications for Transfusion Safety.Viruses · 2026Article
- Performance Comparison of Four Hepatitis E Antibodies Detection Methods.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Diagnostic Performance of Fully Automated Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) Antibody Tests.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) Infection among Hemodialysis Patients from Southern Bulgaria.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Liaison® Murex anti-HEV IgM and IgG assays running on the Liaison® instrument and compare the results with those obtained with Wantai HEV assays. We tested samples collected in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients during the acute (HEV RNA positive, anti-HEV IgM positive) and the post-viremic phase (HEV RNA negative, anti-HEV IgM positive) of infections. The specificity was assessed by testing HEV RNA negative/anti-HEV IgG-IgM negative samples. The clinical sensitivity of the Liaison® IgM assay was 100% for acute-phase samples (56/56) and 57.4% (27/47) for post-viremic samples from immunocompetent patients. It was 93.8% (30/32) for acute-phase (viremic) samples and 71%% (22/31) for post-viremic samples from immunocompromised patients. The clinical sensitivity of the Liaison® IgG assay was 100% for viremic samples (56/56) and 94.6% (43/47) for post-viremic samples from immunocompetent patients. It was 84.3% (27/32) for viremic samples and 93.5% (29/31) for post-viremic samples from immunocompromised patients. Specificity was very high (>99%) in both populations. We checked the limit of detection stated for the Liaison® IgG assay (0.3 U/mL). The clinical performance of the Liaison® ANTI-HEV assays was good. These rapid, automated assays for detecting anti-HEV antibodies will greatly enhance the arsenal for diagnosing HEV infections.
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.