Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) seroprevalences of 0.3%-53% were reported from industrialized countries. Because these estimates may be influenced by detection assays, this study compares 3 frequently used tests for HEV detection: the MP Diagnostics HEV immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the Axiom Diagnostics HEV IgG enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and the Mikrogen recomLine HEV IgG assay. Sera from 200 healthy healthcare workers and 30 individuals with acute HEV infection were analyzed. Among the healthy individuals, HEV IgG was found in 4.5% by the MP Diagnostics assay, in 29.5% by the Axiom Diagnostics assay, and in 18% by the Mikrogen assay. Among individuals with acute HEV infection, positive results were obtained for 83.3%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively. Thus, the 3 assays show clear differences in diagnostic sensitivity.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jis688 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!