ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Comparing specificity and seroconversion sensitivity among major blood screening assays for human immunodeficiency virus and viral hepatitis.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAccurate detection of transfusion-transmissible infections, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C and B viruses (HCV/HBV), is critical to ensure blood safety, and screening assays must demonstrate high specificity and sensitivity. In this study, we compared the performances of Elecsys® HIV Duo, HCV Duo, Anti-HCV II and HBsAg II immunoassays with those of comparator assays HIV Ag/Ab Combo, Anti-HCV II and HBsAg on the Alinity® s platform and HIV Ag/Ab Combo, Anti-HCV and HBsAg Qualitative II on the Alinity i platform. MATERIALS AND
methodsApproximately 2050 plasma samples from first-time blood donors and commercial seroconversion panels were used. Specificity was assessed as the proportion of true non-reactive samples identified by each assay. Seroconversion sensitivity was evaluated based on the detection time and average interval from nucleic acid testing (NAT)-positivity to assay reactivity.
resultsOverall, all Elecsys assays evaluated had similar specificities as the corresponding Alinity s/i assays, although the absolute difference in specificity between Alinity i Anti-HCV assay and the other HCV assays was statistically significant. The seroconversion sensitivities of Elecsys HIV Duo and HBsAg II assays were similar to the corresponding Alinity s/i assays. For HCV, Elecsys HCV Duo assay detected infection earlier than Alinity s/i assays for most panels (87.0% and 91.8%, respectively), with an average detection time from NAT positivity for HCV RNA of 1.5 days versus 21.4 and 23.8 days, respectively.
conclusionThe robust specificities and early detection capabilities of the evaluated Elecsys assays support their routine use in blood donor screening and diagnosis.
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.