Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three commercially available 3rd-generation anti-HCV ELISAs (Abbott, Murex and Ortho) were evaluated in various serum panels: (A) blood donor samples (n = 403) with 1st- or 2nd-generation anti-HCV ELISA (various manufacturers) positive test results; (B) non-A, non-B hepatitis patients (n = 212); (C) multitransfused patients (n = 253); (D) serial dilutions of HCV confirmed (RIBA and PCR) positive blood donors (n = 24), and (E) first-time blood donors (n = 1,055). All samples of panels A, B and C were tested in PCR and RIBA-2. In panels A, B and C, 398 samples were HCV PCR positive: all were detected by Abbott and Ortho, and 397 (99.7%) by Murex. The sample missed by the Murex ELISA showed an isolated anti-C33c reactivity in RIBA-2. In panels A-C, 442 samples were RIBA-2 positive and all were detected by the 3 tests. With Probit analysis on results of panel D, no significant difference in sensitivity was observed between the 3 evaluated ELISAs. Specificities of Abbott, Murex and Ortho in 1,055 blood donors were 99.7, 99.3 and 99.9%, respectively (NS, chi 2). We conclude that the sensitivity and specificity of the 3 ELISAs are comparable although the C33c antigen in the Murex VK47 test should be improved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vrielink et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: