1983•Journal of Clinical MicrobiologyOpen access

Comparison of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with indirect hemagglutination and hemagglutination inhibition for determination of rubella virus antibody: evaluation of immune status with commercial reagents in a clinical laboratory

Allan L. Truant, B L Barksdale, Thomas W. Huber, L. Bruce Elliott

Open full text 15 citations

Abstract

Comparative evaluations of immune status for rubella virus are described for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and indirect hemagglutination. A 92.1% agreement between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect hemagglutination assay was demonstrated for rubella immune status. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition demonstrated a 92.6% agreement and were compared in an attempt to define the quantitative usefulness of comparisons of single sera for determining immune status. These data support the relative lack of correlation between single enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition quantitative values. Enzyme immunoassay was, however, an acceptable alternative to hemagglutination inhibition for the determination of immune status to rubella virus.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Comparative evaluations of immune status for rubella virus are described for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and indirect hemagglutination. A 92.1% agreement between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect hemagglutination assay was demonstrated for rubella immune status. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition demonstrated a 92.6% agreement and were compared in an attempt to define the quantitative usefulness of comparisons of single sera for determining immune status. These data support the relative lack of correlation between single enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition quantitative values. Enzyme immunoassay was, however, an acceptable alternative to hemagglutination inhibition for the determination of immune status to rubella virus.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Comparative evaluations of immune status for rubella virus are described for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and indirect hemagglutination. A 92.1% agreement between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect hemagglutination assay was demonstrated for rubella immune status. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition demonstrated a 92.6% agreement and were compared in an attempt to define the quantitative usefulness of comparisons of single sera for determining immune status. These data support the relative lack of correlation between single enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition quantitative values. Enzyme immunoassay was, however, an acceptable alternative to hemagglutination inhibition for the determination of immune status to rubella virus.

Key concepts: Hemagglutination assay, Rubella virus, Rubella, Hemagglutination, Immunoassay, Virology, Immune system, Antibody

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with indirect hemagglutination and hemagglutination inhibition for determination of rubella virus antibody: evaluation of immune status with commercial reagents in a clinical laboratory — Research Paper | ScholarLens