Comparative evaluation of assays for IgM detection of rubella and measles infections.
Chemiluminescent immunoassay
Electrochemiluminescent immunoassay
Enzyme immunoassay
Inmunoensayo electroquimioluminiscente
Inmunoensayo enzimático
Inmunoensayo quimioluminiscente
Measles virus
Rubella virus
Virus rubéola
Virus sarampión
Journal
Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)
ISSN: 2529-993X
Titre abrégé: Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed)
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101777541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2020
19 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
15
04
2020
revised:
18
06
2020
accepted:
23
06
2020
entrez:
24
8
2020
pubmed:
24
8
2020
medline:
24
8
2020
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Serological diagnosis of infections due to measles and rubella viruses is done by IgM detection. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate commercial systems for detecting IgM against both viruses, including those of ELISA, in indirect and capture formats, chemiluminescence and electrochemiluminescence. Seven (for rubella) and six (for measles) assays were studied. One hundred and sixty two samples were included in the study (from 90 rubella and 72 measles cases), and all were analyzed in all the assays. The ranges of sensitivity, specificity and agreement for rubella were 94.8-100%, 52.4-100% and 75.5-98.1%, respectively. The corresponding ranges for measles assays were 87.0-100%, 53.3-100%, and 73.0-99.4%. The best-performing assays were chemiluminescence (for measles and rubella IgM), and electrochemiluminescence (for rubella IgM).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Serological diagnosis of infections due to measles and rubella viruses is done by IgM detection. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate commercial systems for detecting IgM against both viruses, including those of ELISA, in indirect and capture formats, chemiluminescence and electrochemiluminescence.
METHODS
METHODS
Seven (for rubella) and six (for measles) assays were studied. One hundred and sixty two samples were included in the study (from 90 rubella and 72 measles cases), and all were analyzed in all the assays.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The ranges of sensitivity, specificity and agreement for rubella were 94.8-100%, 52.4-100% and 75.5-98.1%, respectively. The corresponding ranges for measles assays were 87.0-100%, 53.3-100%, and 73.0-99.4%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The best-performing assays were chemiluminescence (for measles and rubella IgM), and electrochemiluminescence (for rubella IgM).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32828554
pii: S0213-005X(20)30256-1
doi: 10.1016/j.eimc.2020.06.019
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
spa
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.