2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2016.08.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two chemiluminescent immunoassays in the detection of measles IgM antibodies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All these serologies were performed with CLIAs which in previous studies displayed high sensitivity and specificity (≥97.6% and ≥96.6%, respectively, for all the serologies). [6670] …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All these serologies were performed with CLIAs which in previous studies displayed high sensitivity and specificity (≥97.6% and ≥96.6%, respectively, for all the serologies). [6670] …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other recently described methods for diagnosis of measles, such as automatable focus reduction neutralization tests (AFRNT) [32], chemiluminescent immunosorbant assays (CLIA) [33], or loopmediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) [34], are used by some laboratories.…”
Section: Potential Other Diagnostic Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous extensive evaluations of commercial measles IgM EIA kits resulted in the broad adoption of the Siemens (previously Behring) Enzygnost kit within the WHO global measles and rubella laboratory network ( 11 13 ). More recent evaluations have included automated chemiluminescent methods ( 17 21 ), but there is still a need for conventional manual EIA methods, which are recommended within the WHO measles and rubella laboratory network ( 10 ). Prompted by the discontinuation of the Enzygnost kit ( 14 ), six alternative EIA methods and one automated CLIA method were evaluated in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%