ArticleJournal of medical virology2023
Comparison of Elecsys and Liaison immunoassays to determine Epstein-Barr virus serological status using further diagnostic approaches to clarify discrepant results.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence that autoantibody production may be driven by acute Epstein-Barr virus infection in Sjögren's disease.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Article
- Fever with atypical lymphocytosis: pearls and pitfalls in Epstein-Barr virus serology.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Comparison of Elecsys and Liaison immunoassays to determine Epstein-Barr virus serological status using further diagnostic approaches to clarify discrepant results.Journal of medical virology · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serological markers for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection are commonly used to diagnose infectious mononucleosis and establish a serological status in pretransplant patients. This study prospectively assessed 1043 serum specimens sent to the laboratory for physician-ordered EBV testing. The three markers-antiviral capsid antigen (VCA) immunoglobulin M (IgM), anti-VCA immunoglobulin G (IgG), and anti-Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA) antibodies-were tested using the Elecsys and the Liaison immunoassays. Specimens with discrepant results between the two assays were assessed using further EBV diagnostic approaches to conclude on the EBV serological status. In spite of substantial agreement between the two assays (88%) and with the presumed EBV status (>92%), the results showed differences in the performance of the assays. Liaison VCA IgM appeared to be the most sensitive test for the detection of the 38 sera classified as early primary infection in comparison with the Elecsys assay (91.4% vs. 68.6%, p = 0.008). Excluding the cases of early primary infection, the sensitivity values of the VCA IgM marker were comparable between the Liaison and Elecsys assays (95.2% and 92.9%, respectively, p = 1). Concerning the sera classified as past infection (n = 763), the Elecsys assay showed higher sensitivity values for the detection of the VCA and EBNA IgG markers in comparison with the Liaison assay (99.9% and 99.7% vs. 97.4% and 91.2%, respectively, p < 0.001). Overall, the Elecsys and Liaison assays showed similar performance. The interpretation of EBV serological profiles based on the clinical context may require serology follow up or further diagnostic approaches in challenging cases.
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.