ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative evaluation of four fully automated immunoanalyzers for the simultaneous detection of HBeAg and Anti-HBe.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Analytical performance evaluation of MAGLUMI HBeAg and anti-HBe chemiluminescence immunoassays and comparison with the Abbott assays.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
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
backgroundHepatitis B envelope Antigen (HBeAg) and anti-hepatitis B envelope Antigen (anti-HBe) are crucial markers for evaluating hepatitis B virus infection status and guiding clinical decisions. Considering the increasing prevalence of HBeAg-negative variants, accurate detection of both markers is essential. This study aimed to examine the analytical performance of four fully automated immunoanalyzers for the simultaneous detection of HBeAg and Anti-HBe and to assess the inter-platform concordance.
methodsIn total, 439 leftover serum samples from routine clinical testing for HBeAg or anti-HBe testing were analyzed using four immunoanalyzers: Architect i2000 and Alinity i (Abbott), Cobas e801 (Roche), and Atellica IM 1600 (Siemens). Samples not tested immediately were stored at 4 °C and analyzed within 24 hours of storage. Verification of Precision followed the CLSI EP15-A3 guidelines, and methods were compared according to the CLSI EP09-A3 guidelines. Qualitative agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ, whereas quantitative correlation was evaluated using Deming regression and R² values.
resultsArchitect i2000 and Alinity i exhibited the highest correlation (R² = 0.9960) and concordance (κ = 0.953 for HBeAg, κ = 0.971 for anti-HBe). Cobas e801 showed strong overall correlation with Architect i2000 (R² = 0.9838), but displayed a systematic negative bias near the cutoff, substantially reducing qualitative agreement. Atellica IM 1600 demonstrated relatively weaker correlation with the other three platforms.
conclusionsInter-platform discrepancies observed may impact clinical interpretation. As these discrepancies primarily stem from systematic bias, they can be readily mitigated by adjusting the reference values. Overall, further harmonization efforts are essential to enhance inter-platform agreement and ensure consistency in clinical decision-making.
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.