Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2026

High-throughput Detection Method for Influenza Virus
Published on: February 4, 2012
Indirect immunofluorescence test performance and questionnaire results from the Centers for Disease Control Model
R N Taylor1, T L Hearn, W O Schalla
1Public Health Practice Program Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
Insights
Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) testing for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 antibody showed high analytic specificity and sensitivity in a 1988 evaluation. Performance varied by laboratory type and manufacturer, with diluted specimens posing challenges.
Area of Science:
- Medical Laboratory Science
- Virology
- Public Health Surveillance
Background:
- The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) established a Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP) to assess laboratory testing accuracy.
- Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) was a common method for detecting human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antibodies in 1988.
- Understanding the performance of IIF testing is crucial for accurate HIV-1 diagnosis and public health surveillance.
Purpose of the Study:
- To present results from laboratories performing indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) testing for HIV-1 antibody.
- To evaluate the analytic sensitivity and specificity of IIF testing within the CDC MPEP.
- To identify factors influencing IIF test performance, such as laboratory type and reagent manufacturer.
Main Methods:
- Data were collected from 111 laboratories across 34 states and nine countries participating in the 1988 CDC MPEP.
- Laboratories submitted results from specimen panels tested using indirect immunofluorescence (IIF).
- Analytic sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility were calculated, considering indeterminate results in different ways.
Main Results:
- Overall analytic specificity was 98.5% (indeterminate as negative) and 89.6% (indeterminate as incorrect).
- Analytic sensitivity was 94.8% (indeterminate as positive) and 91.4% (indeterminate as incorrect).
- Reproducibility was approximately 93% within surveys and 84.3% between surveys; performance varied by laboratory type and manufacturer.
Conclusions:
- Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) testing demonstrated generally high accuracy for HIV-1 antibody detection in the 1988 evaluation.
- Variations in performance were observed across different laboratory types and test manufacturers.
- Diluted specimen materials presented greater testing challenges compared to individual donor materials.
Abstract:
Results from laboratories performing indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) testing for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 antibody and participating in the Centers for Disease Control Model Performance Evaluation Program in 1988 are presented. Approximately 90% of all laboratories receiving specimen panels or questionnaires furnished results to the Centers for Disease Control. In September 1988, 111 reports were received from IIF laboratories from 34 states and nine countries; most of these laboratories did IIF testing in conjunction with other antibody tests. Hospital laboratories were the most common type of laboratory participating in the program. Laboratories that performed IIF employed fewer personnel and performed testing less frequently than did laboratories that performed enzyme immunoassays or Western blot (immunoblot) tests and were likely to use a commercial test kit. Most of the laboratories that referred specimens for IIF testing sent them to the state laboratory. The analytic specificity for the Model Performance Evaluation Program specimens was 98.5% when indeterminate results on a negative specimen were considered correct (negative) and 89.6% when indeterminate results on a negative specimen were considered incorrect; analytic sensitivity was 94.8% when indeterminate results on a positive specimen were correct (positive) and 91.4% when indeterminate results on a positive specimen were considered incorrect. When indeterminate results were considered correct, all types of laboratories (blood bank, state, hospital, independent, and other) had analytic specificities over 96%, and all manufacturers had analytic specificities above 95%. All types of laboratories had analytic sensitivities over 92%, and analytic sensitivities were above 94% for all manufacturers and reagent sources except Cellular Products. Comparison of percentages of correct responses between IIF and Western blot assays on those samples for which there was good agreement on the target interpretation revealed no significant differences. Both individual donor and diluted materials were included in the evaluations; the diluted donor material presented the greatest testing difficulty. Within-survey reproducibility was about 93% overall and by specimen type. Between-survey reproducibility was about 81% for negative and indeterminate specimens and 88.5% for positive specimens, for an overall between-survey reproducibility of 84.3%. Differences in performance were noted when results were compared by type of laboratory and test manufacturer.
More Related Videos
12:09The Use of Fluorescent Target Arrays for Assessment of T Cell Responses In vivo
Published on: June 19, 2014
07:24Single-Cell Multiplexed Fluorescence Imaging to Visualize Viral Nucleic Acids and Proteins and Monitor HIV, HTLV, HBV, HCV, Zika Virus, and Influenza Infection
Published on: October 29, 2020