When evaluating an ELISA assay against an immunofluorescent test with only 60% correlation, what should be the next step?

When faced with a scenario where an ELISA assay shows only 60% correlation with an immunofluorescent test, the best course of action is to refer the discrepant specimens for testing by another method. This approach is crucial because it helps to clarify the accuracy and reliability of the tests in question.

The low correlation suggests that there might be significant differences between the two testing methods, which could be due to various factors such as the specificity of the assays, inherent limitations in the methodologies, or even potential issues with the sample itself. By referring the discrepant specimens to an alternative testing method, a more definitive result can be obtained. This ensures that patients are not adversely affected by potentially false results and provides a clearer understanding of the true serological status.

New kit lots could ensure fresh reagents, but if the correlation is low, it is more prudent to validate the results through a different testing modality first. Testing additional specimens may not address the underlying issue, and performing a competency check on technicians might not be necessary if the problem lies within the tests themselves rather than operator error. Therefore, confirming results through another method is the most scientifically sound approach to resolving discrepancies.