[QUOTE=glenntaj;896467]--run the ELISA test first for a number of infectious conditions, and the run a Western Blot if there are suspicious results from the ELISA. This is mainly due to cost concerns more than anything else.

Hi Glen, I was more wondering if there is an order to the methods: ELISA positive, then WESTERN BLOT. or Are both these tests run concurrently?
The ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay) is a subtype of the overall EIA (enzyme linked immunoassay) that is generally used on liquid samples (such as serum).

I was meaning the ELISA vs EIA(agglutination assay-QUEST) for the neuropathy antibody tests. It seems that the EIA(agglutination assay-QUEST), which was developed by DR Latov, is cheaper and quicker to perform, but is it necessarily as good as the ELISA(more time consuming, intensive stepwise process)?

One study (on pubmed), ran the EIA(agglutination assay-QUEST) of GM-1 antibody AFTER the Guill-Barr patients already had a positive(high/low titers) ELISA(original method, time consuming, more expensive process) antibodies run. The results were:

Patients with High titers on ELISA also tested High on the EIA (QUEST); however, the patients that had Low titers on ELISA tested "absent or weak" on the EIA. It concluded: The sensitivity of our agglutination assay(EIA-QUEST) was much lower than that of ELISA.

I prefer the Western Blot myself, as it is more sensitive for a lot of antibodies.

Are you saying that the western blot can be run first, without running ELISA and give answers without using ELISA?
My understanding from what is online anyway, it tends to be the process to run ELISA first, then run WESTERN BLOT if the ELISA is positive?
What are your thoughts, experience on this?

Thanks!
Ana