ArticleScientific reports2026
Consistent performance of cytomegalovirus IgG assays across platforms contrasts with marked IgM variability, supporting IgG avidity-based infection classification in a high-prevalence population.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CMV serology is vital for screening at-risk populations. While IgG assays show high accuracy, IgM interpretation is challenged by assay variability and the lack of a gold standard, especially in high-prevalence settings. This study evaluates four platforms to refine diagnostic classification. Performance of Mindray (CLIA), Abbott (CMIA), Roche (ECLIA), and NovaLisa (ELISA) was assessed using 319 (IgG) and 237 (IgM) samples against a "composite silver standard" (concordance in ≥ 3 assays). IgG avidity adjudicated discordant IgM results. CMV IgG seropositivity was consistent: Mindray (71.8%), Abbott (71.5%), NovaLisa (69.0%), and Roche (67.1%), aligning with the silver standard (69.6%). IgG assays showed almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.91-0.95), with sensitivities 96.9-99.1% and specificities 90.5-98.9%. Conversely, IgM seropositivity varied significantly: Abbott (18.6%) and NovaLisa (18.1%) were significantly higher than the silver standard (5.5%; p < 0.01), while Mindray (8.9%) and Roche (9.7%) aligned closer. IgM agreement was only fair-to-moderate (κ = 0.34-0.58). Avidity confirmed most isolated IgM-positive results did not reflect recent infection. CMV IgG detection is robust across platforms and suitable for clinical use. However, marked IgM discordance limits its standalone utility, supporting an IgG-based diagnostic strategy supplemented by avidity testing in high-prevalence populations.
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.