ArticleMicroorganisms2025
Evaluation of Commercial Immunoassays for Rubella Virus IgG Detection in Low-Antibody Sera Using a Recombinant Immunoblot as a Reference Method.
Article in Microorganisms, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rubella virus (RV) IgG quantification is essential for verifying immunity, particularly in prenatal care. However, substantial variability exists among commercial immunoassays, especially when testing low-antibody sera. In this study, we evaluated five commercial assays-four chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and one Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)-using a recombinant immunoblot (IB) as the reference method. A panel of 137 serum samples with low or undetectable IgG levels was analyzed. Sensitivity ranged from 19.6% to 70.1%, while specificity exceeded 94%. Only 18.6% of immunoblot-positive samples tested positive across all assays. Marked quantitative differences were observed, with the Atellica assay yielding the highest titers and Alinity the lowest. Reclassifying equivocal results as positive improved concordance without compromising specificity. These findings suggest that current cut-off values, derived from post-infection sera, may be inadequate for vaccinated populations. A single universal threshold may lead to misclassification and underestimation of immunity. Harmonization of assay calibrations, antigenic targets, and interpretation criteria is urgently needed to ensure reliable rubella immunity assessments in clinical and public health settings.
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.