Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Sep;12(9):1104-8.
doi: 10.1128/CDLI.12.9.1104-1108.2005.

Evaluation of three immunoassays used for detection of anti-rubella virus immunoglobulin M antibodies

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of three immunoassays used for detection of anti-rubella virus immunoglobulin M antibodies

Wayne Dimech et al. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2005 Sep.

Abstract

Three automated assays (Abbott AxSYM, Bayer ADVIA Centaur, and bioMerieux VIDAS) used for the detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin M were evaluated. A total of 57 samples from individuals with evidence of infection with rubella virus were used to estimate sensitivity, and 220 samples from blood donors and individuals attending an antenatal clinic who had no evidence of recent infection were used to estimate specificity. Seroconversion panels comprising an additional 31 samples from four individuals were used to determine clinical sensitivity. Samples containing potentially cross-reacting substances were also tested. The sensitivities of the three assays ranged from 84.2 to 96.5%, and the specificities ranged from 96.8 to 99.9%. The Abbott AxSYM assay detected more reactive samples than the other two assays when a panel of 57 positive samples was tested. Bayer ADVIA Centaur detected more reactive samples in the seroconversion panels than the other two assays. All three assays evaluated reported a reactive result in 1 or more of the 48 samples containing potentially cross-reacting analytes. The assays demonstrated comparable performance in testing of a well-characterized panel of samples.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Best, J. M., S. O'Shea, G. Tipples, N. Davies, S. M. Al-Khusaiby, A. Krause, L. M. Hesketh, L. Jin, and G. Enders. 2002. Interpretation of rubella serology in pregnancy—pitfalls and problems. BMJ 325:147-148. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosma, T. J., K. M. Corbett, M. B. Eckstein, S. O'Shea, P. Vijayalakshmi, J. E. Banatvala, K. Morton, and J. M. Best. 1995. Use of PCR for prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of congenital rubella. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2881-2887. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosma, T. J., K. M. Corbett, S. O'Shea, J. E. Banatvala, and J. M. Best. 1995. PCR for detection of rubella virus RNA in clinical samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:1075-1079. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Champsaur, H., M. Fattal-German, and R. Arranhado. 1988. Sensitivity and specificity of viral immunoglobulin M determination by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 26:328-332. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chernesky, M. A., L. Wyman, J. B. Mahony, S. Castriciano, J. T. Unger, J. W. Safford, and P. S. Metzel. 1984. Clinical evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available enzyme immunoassay for detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin M. J. Clin. Microbiol. 20:400-404. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types