ArticlePloS one2024
Performance of immunological assays for universal and differential diagnosis of HTLV-1/2 infection in candidates for blood donations from the Brazilian Amazon.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- FC-duplex IgG1 (HTLV-1/2): Qualifying the flow cytometry IgG1 duplex assay for differential diagnosis of HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 infections.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Human T-Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV): Epidemiology, Genetic, Pathogenesis, and Future Challenges.Viruses · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study compares the ability of distinct immunological assays (chemiluminescence immunoassay-CLIA, western blot-WB and flow cytometry-FC-Simplex and Duplex) to detect anti-HTLV (human T-lymphotropic virus) antibodies in candidates for blood donations at the Amazonas State Blood Center (Brazil) between January 2018 and December 2022. Overall, 257,942 samples from candidates for blood donations were screened using CLIA, which led to 0.15% seropositivity for HTLV (409 samples). A total of 151 candidates for blood donations were enrolled for retesting with CLIA followed by additional testing using WB and FC-Simplex and Duplex analysis. Our results demonstrated that 62% (93/151), 20% (30/151) and 17% (26/151) of the samples presented positive results with retesting using CLIA, WB and FC-Simplex analysis, respectively. Additional analysis of the CLIA, WB and FC-Simplex results revealed an overall agreement of 56% for CLIA and WB (22 co-negative; 30 co-positive samples), 48% for CLIA and FC-Simplex (21 co-negative; 24 co-positive samples) and 80% for WB and FC-Simplex (51 co-negative; 23 co-positive samples). Considering the WB as the reference standard for the diagnosis of infection with HTLV-1/2, we observed that the CLIA results of ≤3.0 RLU and >10.0 RLU in the retest can be used define a negative or positive result, respectively, and could be used as new specific cut-off values. The overall agreement between WB and FC-Duplex for accomplishing the differential diagnosis was evaluated and demonstrated 100% correspondence for the diagnosis of HTLV-1 (15/15) and HTLV-2 (7/7). Our findings demonstrate that gaps in the diagnosis of infection with HTLV-1/2 could be overcome by the simultaneous use of distinct immunological assays during retesting of candidates for blood donations.
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.