Diagnostic accuracy of tests to detect hepatitis B surface antigen: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

Table 1 Study characteristics of laboratory-based immunoassays against laboratory reference standard [EIA vs EIA]s

Study [author, year]	Location [country, city]	Sample size	Study design	Setting	Sample type	Assay under evaluation [type, brand]	Reference standard [type, brand]
Liu, 2014 [14]	China	250	CC	Hospital patients; outpatients (Preselected based on CMIA quantitative results)	Serum	ECLIA, Cobas ELISA, Wantai	CMIA, Architect HBsAg
Peng, 2011 [49]	China	498	CC	Hospital patients (Preselected based on S/CO from KHB screen)	Serum	ELISA, KHB	CMIA, Architect HBsAg
Geretti, 2010 [47]	Ghana, Kumasi	838	CS – CSQ	HIV clinic (1/3 on lamivudine)	Serum	CMIA, Architect HBsAg CMIA, Liaison Ultra EIA, Murex v3	CMIA, Architect/ Liaison EIA, Murex v3^a
Ol, 2009 [48]	Cambodia	120	CS – CSQ	Blood donors (rural community)	Serum	ELISA, Monolisa	CMIA, Architect HBsAg
Viet, 2012 [50]	Vietnam	119	CS – CSQ	Blood donors (rural community)	Serum	EIA, Monolisa Ultra	CMIA, Architect HBsAg

^aReactive all three assays OR reactive in one assay with neutralisation
CC case control, CMIA chemiluminescent microparticle enzyme immunoassay, CS cross-sectional, CSQ consecutive patients, ECLIA electrochemiluminescent immunoassay, EIA enzyme immunoassay, ELISA enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, KHB KHB Ltd., Shanghai, S/CO signal cut-off ratio

ISSN: 1471-2334