These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of three commercially available serologic assays used to detect human parvovirus B19-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies in sera of pregnant women.
    Author: Butchko AR, Jordan JA.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 2004 Jul; 42(7):3191-5. PubMed ID: 15243081.
    Abstract:
    A split-sample study was conducted to evaluate the performances of three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) utilizing one or more conformational antigens to detect human parvovirus B19 (B19V)-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) or IgG in the sera of 198 pregnant women. We compared EIAs available from Biotrin International, Inc. (Dublin, Ireland), Medac Diagnostika (Wedel, Germany), and Mikrogen (Martinsried, Germany). Specimens with discordant results were analyzed further using an immunofluorescence assay (Biotrin). Equivocal data accounted for close to half of all the discrepant results for both IgM and IgG, with 7 of 15 discrepant results from the Medac and Mikrogen kits involving equivocal data and the Biotrin kit giving a single equivocal result. For each specimen, a consensus was established from the four test results if agreement occurred among at least three of four results. Overall, the highest percentage of agreement with the consensus results was seen when Biotrin kits were used; 194 (100%) of 194 and 194 (99.5%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus results. When Medac kits were used, 189 (97.4%) of 194 and 191 (97.9%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus, and when Mikrogen kits were used, 179 (92.3%) of 194 and 193 (99%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus. Given the consensus results, the Medac EIA appeared to generate presumed false-positive results for IgM and the Mikrogen EIA appeared to generate presumed false-positive results for IgG and IgM. In summary, the Biotrin EIAs produced far fewer equivocal results than the other assays and results of the Biotrin EIAs agreed more often with the consensus results than did those of the other commercially available EIAs for detecting B19V-specific IgM and IgG antibodies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]