Skip to main content

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

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

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 v3a
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
  1. aReactive all three assays OR reactive in one assay with neutralisation
  2. 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