JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wittenburg, R A
Right arrow Articles by Little, L M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wittenburg, R A
Right arrow Articles by Little, L M

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1985 February; 21(2): 161-163

Comparative evaluation of commercial rubella virus antibody kits.

R A Wittenburg, M A Roberts, L B Elliott and L M Little

ABSTRACT

Comparative evaluation of six commercial rubella virus antibody kits is described. A set of serum samples skewed toward nonreactive and low-positive rubella antibody levels was used because the goal of an immunity screening test is the detection of susceptible individuals. The M. A. Bioproducts Rubastat and the Hynson, Westcott and Dunning Rubascan were superior in achieving high sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. They also were the easiest and fastest tests to perform, and they require equipment available in most laboratories.

J Clin Microbiol. 1985 February; 21(2): 161-163






Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1985 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.