Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39053655›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2024

Appropriateness of Immunoglobulin M Testing for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.

Thomas D Filardo, Nina B Masters, Jessica Leung, Sarah Baca, Heartley Egwuogu, Oscar Rincon Guevara, Julia Raykin, David E Sugerman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas D FilardoViral Vaccine Preventable Disease Branch; Division of Viral Diseases; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: rhx1@cdc.gov.
Nina B MastersViral Vaccine Preventable Disease Branch; Division of Viral Diseases; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jessica LeungViral Vaccine Preventable Disease Branch; Division of Viral Diseases; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sarah BacaOffice of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; GAP Solutions Inc, Herndon, Virginia.
Heartley EgwuoguOffice of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; GAP Solutions Inc, Herndon, Virginia.
Oscar Rincon GuevaraOffice of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Julia RaykinOffice of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
David E SugermanViral Vaccine Preventable Disease Branch; Division of Viral Diseases; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTesting for immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella should include only immunoglobulin G (IgG); immunoglobulin M (IgM) testing is appropriate only if acute illness is suspected. The appropriateness of measles, mumps, and rubella IgM testing was evaluated in a national administrative dataset.

methodsLaboratory testing for measles, mumps, and rubella during 2019-2022 was analyzed in 2024 using HealthVerity administrative claims and laboratory data. IgG, IgM, and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing are described by year, demographics, and region. IgM testing was examined for appropriateness, defined as an IgM test combined with diagnostic codes indicative of acute illness.

resultsDuring 2019-2022, IgM testing represented a small proportion of serologic testing (measles: 3.3%, mumps: 2.4%, rubella: 2.1%) but appeared to be appropriately performed in only 15.4% of cases for measles, 32.8% of cases for mumps, and 10.2% of cases for rubella. IgM testing was more commonly performed for female patients, with the largest discrepancy seen for rubella (90.5% female vs 9.5% male). IgM for measles and mumps was more often performed appropriately for persons aged 0-19 years (37.6% and 60.1%) compared with persons aged 20-49 years (11.8% and 22.0%) and 50+ years (16.5% and 33.8%).

conclusionsThe majority of IgM testing for measles, mumps, and rubella during this period appeared inappropriate. Clinicians and health systems could ensure that IgG testing alone is performed when evaluating for immunity through modifications to electronic medical records and commercial laboratories could ensure that providers are able to test for IgG alone when evaluating immunity.

Indexed as

Immunoglobulin MMeaslesMumpsRubellaAdolescentAdultAntibodies, ViralChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin GInfantMaleMiddle AgedSerologic TestsAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin M

Identifiers

PMID39053655
PMCPMC12257548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.