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: Rubella IgM antibody determination: comparison of two indirect and two capture commercial enzyme immunoassays.
    Author: Revello MG, Percivalle E, Zavattoni M, Gerna G.
    Journal: Microbiologica; 1987 Oct; 10(4):393-401. PubMed ID: 2826972.
    Abstract:
    A new capture ELISA kit (ETI-Rubek-M) for rubella IgM antibody determination was compared with a commercial reverse (Rubenostika IgM) and two indirect ELISAs (Rubelisa M and Rubazyme-M). Of the 89 sera from 38 patients with acute rubella infection, 70 gave identical results with the four assays (78% concordance), 74 were in agreement in the two indirect ELISAs, and 83 concorded in the reverse assays (83% and 93% concordance, respectively). On the whole, ETI-Rubek-M and Rubenostika IgM proved equally sensitive; sensitivity of the indirect ELISA kits was lower, Rubazyme-M being slightly more sensitive than Rubelisa M. Specificity of the two reverse assays was 100%, whereas Rubelisa M and Rubazyme-M showed a specificity of 88.8% and 93.3%, respectively. In indirect ELISAs, false positive IgM results were mainly observed in cytomegalovirus IgM-positive sera from patients recovering from a primary cytomegalovirus infection. Two sequential sera from one of these patients with IgM to cytomegalovirus were found to be true positive for rubella-specific IgM antibody with ETI-Rubek-M, Rubelisa M and Rubazyme-M.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]