ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Multicenter validation of a galactomannan chemiluminescence immunoassay for the diagnosis of pulmonary aspergillosis on serum of patients with hematological disease.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Biomarkers in Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Infections: Where Do We Stand?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An accurate diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with underlying hematological malignancies relies heavily on galactomannan detection. In this study, we compared the VirCLIA chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) with the frequently used Platelia enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on serum from hematology patients with suspected IA. Patients were categorized according to EORTC/MSGERC 2020 definitions into proven/probable IA and possible/no IA. The first cohort included 161 patients at four centers, and the VirCLIA manufacturer's cutoff of 0.200 was evaluated. Next, the optimal cutoff was determined using the Youden's index. In a second independent cohort of 189 patients from four centers, this optimal cutoff was evaluated again. In the first cohort, sensitivities and specificities for probable/proven IA were 21.1% and 100.0% for ELISA (1.0 cutoff) and 36.6% and 95.6% (0.5 cutoff), compared to 11.3% and 97.8% for CLIA (0.200 cutoff). In the second cohort, the sensitivities of ELISA and CLIA were comparable (ELISA ≥ 1.0: 33.3%, CLIA ≥ 0.200: 38.1%). The area under the ROC curve was lower for CLIA than for ELISA in the first cohort (65.0% vs 78.7%,
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.