ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Performance evaluation of the Access HBsAg and Access HBsAg confirmatory assays on the DxI 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analytical and Workflow Performance of a High-Throughput Chemiluminescent Immunoassay System in a Clinical Laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated the clinical and analytical performances of the Access HBsAg and the Access HBsAg Confirmatory assays on the DxI 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer (Beckman Coulter, Inc.). Materials and methods: Diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of the Access HBsAg and Access HBsAg Confirmatory assays were evaluated by comparing the Access assays to the final HBsAg sample status determined using the Architect, PRISM, or Elecsys HBsAg assays, along with Architect or PRISM HBsAg Confirmatory assays. Imprecision, sensitivity on seroconversion panels, analytical sensitivity on WHO, and recognition of HBV variants were also evaluated. Results: A total of 7534 samples were included in the analysis (6047 blood donors, 1032 hospitalized patients, 455 positive patients' samples). Access HBsAg assay sensitivity and specificity were at 100.00% (99.19-100.0) and 99.92% (99.82-99.97), respectively. Sensitivity of Access HBsAg Confirmatory assay was 100.00% (99.21-100.0) on the 464 HBsAg positive samples. The use of a high positive algorithm for the Access HBsAg assay, wherein samples with S/CO ≥ 100.00 were considered positive without requiring repeat or confirmatory testing, was successfully evaluated with all 450 specimens with S/CO greater than 100.00 (sensitivity 100.00%; 99.19-100.0). Access HBsAg assay demonstrated good analytical performance, equivalent recognition of seroconversion panels compared to Architect assay, and an analytical sensitivity between 0.022 and 0.025 IU/mL. All HBV genotypes, subtypes and mutants were well detected without analytical sensitivity loss. Conclusion: Access HBsAg and Access HBsAg Confirmatory assays demonstrated robust performances. They provide low samples volume requirements and a simplified process, no systematic retesting for high positive samples.
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.