ArticleVirology journal2026
Evaluation of the analytical performance of the MAGLUMI HEV IgM and IgG assays for automated detection of HEV antibodies and comparison with the microplate Wantai assay.
Article in Virology journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatitis E virus (HEV) infection screening and diagnosis are critical for controlling the HEV epidemic. Serological testing for anti-HEV IgM and IgG is widely used to diagnose acute and past HEV infections, respectively. This study aims to evaluate the analytical performances of the MAGLUMI HEV IgM and IgG assays for detection of HEV antibodies and comparison with the microplate Wantai assay.
methodsWe assessed the precision, cross-reactivity, and interference of the MAGLUMI HEV IgM and IgG assays, as well as their agreement rates with the Wantai HEV IgM and IgG assays. Method comparison included in total 775 samples from 405 patients with suspected HEV infection and 86 asymptomatic blood donors. Among them, the HEV infection status of 136 individuals was confirmed through HEV RNA results, including 39 cases of acute infection, 3 cases of convalescence, and 94 cases of non-infected individuals.
resultsThe within-run and between-day imprecision for the MAGLUMI HEV IgM assay ranged from 1.54% to 3.71%, while for the MAGLUMI HEV IgG assay, it ranged from 0.00% to 4.35%. No cross-reactivity was observed in either assay. The positive and negative agreement rates between the MAGLUMI and Wantai IgM assay were 98.61% and 99.31%, respectively. The positive and negative agreement rates between the MAGLUMI and Wantai IgG assay were 94.95% and 97.20%, respectively.
conclusionsOverall, the analytical performance of the MAGLUMI HEV IgM and IgG assays is good, with reactivities comparable to those of the Wantai HEV IgM and IgG assays. However, due to the limited availability of HEV RNA detection results and lack of HEV genotype information, this study could not effectively evaluate the clinical performance of the reagent, and further studies with HEV RNA determination and genotyping are needed for a clinical validation.
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.