This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vlaspolder, F.
Right arrow Articles by Diepersloot, R. J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vlaspolder, F.
Right arrow Articles by Diepersloot, R. J. A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2001, p. 552-555, Vol. 8, No. 3
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.3.552-555.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Immulite with Vidas for Detection of Infection in a Low-Prevalence Population of Pregnant Women in The Netherlands

F. Vlaspolder,1,* P. Singer,1 A. Smit,1 and R. J. A. Diepersloot2

Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, Medical Center Alkmaar,1 and Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, Diakonessen Hospital, Utrecht,2 The Netherlands

Received 20 November 2000/Returned for modification 9 January 2001/Accepted 12 February 2001

A comparative evaluation of the Vidas system (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) and the Immulite System (Diagnostic Products Corporation) was performed using 500 prospectively collected serum samples. As part of a routine antenatal screening program, these samples were tested for hepatitis B surface antigen, and immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and rubella virus. The overall agreement between the two assay systems ranged from 98.0 to 99.8%. After discrepancy analysis the outcome in terms of relative sensitivity and specificity varied from 97.5 to 100%.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Phone: 31725483760. Fax: 31725482186. E-mail: f.vlaspolder{at}mca.alkmaar.nl.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2001, p. 552-555, Vol. 8, No. 3
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.3.552-555.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Dimech, W., Panagiotopoulos, L., Marler, J., Laven, N., Leeson, S., Dax, E. M. (2005). Evaluation of Three Immunoassays Used for Detection of Anti-Rubella Virus Immunoglobulin M Antibodies. CVI 12: 1104-1108 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ellis, V, Charlett, A, Bendall, R (2004). A comparison of IgG anti-rubella activity in frozen serum stored in primary gel separation tubes or secondary tubes. J. Clin. Pathol. 57: 104-106 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»