ArticleVirology journal2025
Comparative evaluation of four commercial analyzers for the serological screening of hepatitis A.
Article in Virology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSerological assays for hepatitis A virus (HAV) play a crucial role in diagnosing acute infections and monitoring disease transmission. Given their widespread use in clinical laboratories, discrepancies among different immunoassay analyzers may have significant clinical implications. This study aimed to assess the quantitative and qualitative agreement between anti-HAV total immunoglobulin (or IgG) and IgM results across four fully automated immunoassay systems.
methodsA total of 280 and 223 clinical serum samples were tested for anti-HAV total immunoglobulin (or IgG) and IgM, respectively, using four immunoanalyzers: Vitros ECiQ (Ortho), Atellica IM 1600 (Siemens), Alinity i (Abbott), and Cobas e801 (Roche). Quantitative correlations and qualitative agreements were assessed, and cases with discordant anti-HAV IgM results were further investigated using available clinical data.
resultsWhile the total immunoglobulin (or IgG) assay demonstrated a strong correlation across all platforms, substantial discrepancies were observed in the IgM results, particularly between the Vitros ECiQ and the other three analyzers. Although the other three platforms yielded concordant results, the clinical review indicated that in 4 out of 6 cases (66.6%), the Vitros ECiQ results aligned more closely with the clinical presentations.
conclusionsThis study highlights inter-assay variability in anti-HAV IgM detection and underscores the need for improved harmonization across platforms. Future studies incorporating a sufficient number of molecularly confirmed acute hepatitis A cases are warranted to clarify the causes of false results and minimize the potential clinical impact of inaccurate testing.
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.