ArticleScientific reports2025
Analytical and clinical performance evaluation of the Wantai chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay on the Wan200 + analyzer for diagnosing HIV.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- The application of Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA) in the detection of HIV infectious markers in blood screening.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
Abstract
On September 1, 2019, China implemented the "Blood Station Technical Operation Procedures (2019 Edition)," specifying Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA) for serological testing. However, no CLIA HIV reagent has been approved for blood donor screening in China. This study evaluates the WT CMIA reagents for HIV screening in blood stations, providing evidence for their approval as a national screening tool. A controlled trial compared WT CMIA and ELISA reagents, as well as CLIA reagents from other manufacturers, through clinical experiments and reference serum panel testing. Evaluation metrics included precision, sensitivity, specificity, detection limit, method comparison, and reference range. Clinical Experiments: Among 10,470 blood donor samples, WT CMIA detected 100% of confirmed HIV-infected donors (42/42), compared to 97.62% for ELISA (41/42). CMIA and Wantai ELISA both had a specificity of 99.96%, Lizhu ELISA 99.98%. Kappa values between CMIA and ELISA methods were 0.90 and 0.92. Reference Serum Testing: Both CMIA and ELISA demonstrated 100% sensitivity (148/148). CMIA had a CV under 5%, while ELISA methods exceeded 5%. WT CMIA detected 97.03% of early HIV infections, compared to 93.07% for Roche and Abbott CLIA. Detection titers for HIV subtypes were not lower than 1:40, with a detection limit of 1.25 IU/mL for the P24 antigen, meeting WHO standards. WT CMIA shows high consistency with ELISA and superior sensitivity for early HIV detection, meeting WHO standards for blood donor screening in China.
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.