10.8.3What are the diagnostic tests available for detection of rubella infection in pregnant women and how do they compare in terms of specificity, sensitivity, and cost-effectiveness?

StudyRef.PopulationInterventionOutcomesResultsCommentsStudy typeEL
Grageot-Keros and Enders, 1997426852 sera (575 negative for anti-rubella virus IgM antibodies, 98 previously reactive sera, 28 paired sera taken during the acute phase of the disease, 9 sera from follow-up of primary infections, 44 sera from follow-up of vaccinations, and 98 samples containing potentially interfering analytes)Roche Rubella IgM eEIA recomb compared with Abbott IMx Rubella IgM test and Sorin ETI-RUBIK-M reverse testSensitivity and specificitySensitivity:
  • Roche: 99.3%
  • Abbott: 98.3%
  • Sorin: 100%
Specificity:
  • Roche: 100%
  • Abbott: 93.9%
  • Sorin: 82.7%
EV2a

From: Evidence tables

Cover of Antenatal Care
Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 62.
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK).
London: RCOG Press; 2008 Mar.
Copyright © 2008, National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK [www.cla.co.uk]. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.