ArticleCureus2026
Acceptability Limits for Inter-instrument Variability in Viral Serological Tests on Two Enhanced Chemiluminescence Immunoassay Instruments: Evidence From a Hospital Laboratory-Based Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Reliable viral serological testing is essential for accurate diagnosis and public health management of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms, particularly enhanced chemiluminescence (eCLIA) systems, are widely used; however, inter-instrument variability remains a challenge in laboratories operating multiple analyzers. Defining acceptable limits of variation is crucial for ensuring diagnostic accuracy, laboratory quality assurance, and clinical decision-making. Objectives To evaluate the correlation and agreement between two eCLIA platforms (Vitros ECi and Vitros 3600) in detecting HIV, HBsAg, and HCV, and to establish data-driven acceptability limits for inter-instrument variability. Methods An analytical cross‑sectional study was conducted in a diagnostic laboratory of a medical college in Bengaluru, India (January 2019-December 2024). Each day, one patient serum sample was selected at random and tested simultaneously on both eCLIA analyzers. Hemolyzed, lipemic, or insufficient samples were excluded. This random sampling approach, with one sample per day, was considered appropriate for inter‑instrument comparison, as most accreditation bodies recommend testing 1-2 samples only every three months. Results were expressed as S/CO values. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed. Jarque-Bera testing assessed normality. Bootstrapping (1000 iterations) was conducted to evaluate the stability of out-of-limit findings and propose acceptable error thresholds. Results Of 830 samples processed, the final dataset (after excluding incomplete or zero values) showed high variability across parameters (CV > 50%; HCV > 100%). Pearson correlation demonstrated strong linear relationships for HCV (r = 0.85, R² = 0.72) and HBsAg (r = 0.85, R² = 0.73), but only moderate correlation for HIV (r = 0.64, R² = 0.41). Jarque-Bera statistics (p<0.0001) indicated non-normal distribution, supporting the use of Bland-Altman analysis. Bland-Altman plots revealed approximately 95% agreement for all three markers, with similar proportions of out-of-limit values despite differing correlation strengths. Bootstrapping analysis showed ≤5% error across simulated datasets, suggesting a 5% inter-instrument variability as a reasonable acceptability limit. Conclusion Correlation alone is insufficient to assess agreement between CLIA instruments, particularly for non-normally distributed diagnostic data. Bland-Altman analysis combined with bootstrapping provides a more robust approach for evaluating inter-instrument variability. Based on empirical error estimates, an acceptability threshold of ≤5% variability is proposed for laboratories using dual eCLIA platforms for viral serology. These findings support evidence-based quality assurance and instrument interchangeability in clinical diagnostics.
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.