ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2023
Sporadic Hepatitis A Virus PCR False-Positive Results Observed during Reflex Testing of Serum Samples Previously Tested for Anti-HAV Antibodies and Caused by Contamination with HAV RNA Present in the Reagents of the Commercial Anti-HAV Immunoassay.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2023. 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.
- Revealing the therapeutic potential of bioactive exopolysaccharide (EPSS10) derived from Streptomyces sp. MAE.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of four commercial analyzers for the serological screening of hepatitis A.Virology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatitis A diagnosis relies on serology and occasionally on hepatitis A virus (HAV) RNA detection. For timely diagnosis and the avoidance of drawing additional blood, molecular testing is often performed as reflex testing by using blood specimens that were initially sent for anti-HAV serology. Reflex molecular testing is preferably performed from different sample aliquots, but, for limited sample quantities, it uses samples that have been preprocessed in an immunoassay analyzer. In 2012, we first observed sporadic HAV RNA-positive cases that were inconsistent with patients' serological profiles and/or medical histories, suggesting that occasional laboratory contamination was causing false-positive PCR results. Multiple external quality assurance (EQA) and laboratory surface contamination checks were performed, questionable specimens were tested with various HAV RNA tests, and follow-up serum/stool samples were collected. All contamination-check samples and samples from healthy individuals tested HAV RNA-negative, and the laboratory successfully passed all EQAs. The HAV RNA-positive results were reproducible with various HAV RNA assays. No patients seroconverted, and their follow-up samples were consistently HAV RNA-negative. Finally, a detailed review of testing protocols revealed a correlation between HAV RNA false positivity and preceding anti-HAV testing with the Cobas-e411 automated immunoassay analyzer. HAV RNA was detected in the Cobas-e411 anti-HAV reagents, with the HAV sequences matching those from the false-positive samples. Preceding anti-HAV testing using two other immunoassay analyzers did not result in subsequent HAV RNA false positivity during reflex testing. The Cobas-e411 pipetting procedure with a single pipette tip collecting samples and anti-HAV reagents contaminated the original sample with the HAV RNA that was present in the immunoassay's reagents, thereby resulting in HAV RNA false positivity during the reflex testing.
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.