Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody

Objective To investigate the effects of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody through a comparative analysis. Methods A total of 207 samples which tested positive by four anti-HCV screening reagents commonly used in the laboratories in China (Kehua, Xinchuang, Wanta...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: GUO Feibo, WU Junzhu
Format: Article
Language:zho
Published: Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2016-09-01
Series:Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
Online Access:http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=7669
id doaj-c784abd7fa274ddfb79b4f26007ad13a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c784abd7fa274ddfb79b4f26007ad13a2020-11-24T20:59:46ZzhoEditorial Department of Journal of Clinical HepatologyLinchuang Gandanbing Zazhi1001-52561001-52562016-09-013291725172810.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2016.09.018Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibodyGUO Feibo0WU Junzhu1School of Basic Medical Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, ChinaSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, ChinaObjective To investigate the effects of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody through a comparative analysis. Methods A total of 207 samples which tested positive by four anti-HCV screening reagents commonly used in the laboratories in China (Kehua, Xinchuang, Wantai, and Abbott) were included. HCV RNA nucleic acid amplification (NAT) was performed, and if NAT results were negative, recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) was performed for further confirmation. The test results of these four screening reagents were compared, and their S/CO values and true positive rates were analyzed. Results Of all the 205 samples testing positive by any one reagent, 191 (93.2%) tested positive by the four reagents, and 14 (6.8%) were tested inconsistently by the four reagents. The positive predictive values of Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents were 88.2% (180/204), 93.8% (180/192), 91.4% (180/197), and 90.0% (180/200), respectively. The S/CO thresholds with a positive predictive value of ≥95% for Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents were 9.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 7.0, respectively. Conclusion Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents have significantly different S/CO thresholds with a positive predictive value of ≥95%, which are significantly different from those in other domestic laboratories. Each laboratory should establish an applicable S/CO threshold with a positive predictive value of ≥95%, in order to reduce the sample size for confirmatory test.http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=7669
collection DOAJ
language zho
format Article
sources DOAJ
author GUO Feibo
WU Junzhu
spellingShingle GUO Feibo
WU Junzhu
Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
author_facet GUO Feibo
WU Junzhu
author_sort GUO Feibo
title Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
title_short Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
title_full Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
title_fullStr Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus antibody
title_sort efficacy comparative of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis c virus antibody
publisher Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Hepatology
series Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
issn 1001-5256
1001-5256
publishDate 2016-09-01
description Objective To investigate the effects of different laboratory test reagents for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody through a comparative analysis. Methods A total of 207 samples which tested positive by four anti-HCV screening reagents commonly used in the laboratories in China (Kehua, Xinchuang, Wantai, and Abbott) were included. HCV RNA nucleic acid amplification (NAT) was performed, and if NAT results were negative, recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) was performed for further confirmation. The test results of these four screening reagents were compared, and their S/CO values and true positive rates were analyzed. Results Of all the 205 samples testing positive by any one reagent, 191 (93.2%) tested positive by the four reagents, and 14 (6.8%) were tested inconsistently by the four reagents. The positive predictive values of Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents were 88.2% (180/204), 93.8% (180/192), 91.4% (180/197), and 90.0% (180/200), respectively. The S/CO thresholds with a positive predictive value of ≥95% for Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents were 9.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 7.0, respectively. Conclusion Xinchuang, Kehua, Wantai, and Abbott reagents have significantly different S/CO thresholds with a positive predictive value of ≥95%, which are significantly different from those in other domestic laboratories. Each laboratory should establish an applicable S/CO threshold with a positive predictive value of ≥95%, in order to reduce the sample size for confirmatory test.
url http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=7669
work_keys_str_mv AT guofeibo efficacycomparativeofdifferentlaboratorytestreagentsforhepatitiscvirusantibody
AT wujunzhu efficacycomparativeofdifferentlaboratorytestreagentsforhepatitiscvirusantibody
_version_ 1716781630568267776