ArticleEmerging infectious diseases2019
Comparison of Serologic Assays for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.
Article in Emerging infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assay to analyze neutralization and inhibition of authentic Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2024Article
- Time Course Evaluation of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays Based on Cell-Free Recombinant Proteins for Detection of Antibodies against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Single-reaction multi-antigen serological test for comprehensive evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 patients by flow cytometry.European journal of immunology · 2021Article
- Limited Specificity of Serologic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection, Benin.Emerging infectious diseases · 2021Article
- High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in care homes affected by COVID-19: Prospective cohort study, England.EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients.Emerging infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Review
- A novel luciferase immunosorbent assay performs better than a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect MERS-CoV specific IgG in humans and animals.Biosafety and health · 2019Article
- Serologic testing of coronaviruses from MERS-CoV to SARS-CoV-2: Learning from the past and anticipating the future.Travel medicine and infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was detected in humans in 2012. Since then, sporadic outbreaks with primary transmission through dromedary camels to humans and outbreaks in healthcare settings have shown that MERS-CoV continues to pose a threat to human health. Several serologic assays for MERS-CoV have been developed globally. We describe a collaborative study to investigate the comparability of serologic assays for MERS-CoV and assess any benefit associated with the introduction of a standard reference reagent for MERS-CoV serology. Our study findings indicate that, when possible, laboratories should use a testing algorithm including >2 tests to ensure correct diagnosis of MERS-CoV. We also demonstrate that the use of a reference reagent greatly improves the agreement between assays, enabling more consistent and therefore more meaningful comparisons between results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.