Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32505774›Full record

ArticleClinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry2020

SARS-CoV-2 antibody characterization in emergency department, hospitalized and convalescent patients by two semi-quantitative immunoassays.

He S Yang, Sabrina E Racine-Brzostek, William T Lee, Danielle Hunt, Jim Yee, Zhengming Chen, Jeffrey Kubiak, Miguel Cantu, Layla Hatem, Elaine Zhong and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Characteristics of natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 over time in wait-listed dialysis patients and recent kidney transplant recipients.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

He S YangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Sabrina E Racine-BrzostekDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
William T LeeDiagnostic Immunology Laboratory, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Danielle HuntDiagnostic Immunology Laboratory, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Jim YeeNew York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Zhengming ChenDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jeffrey KubiakDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Miguel CantuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Layla HatemDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Elaine ZhongDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Danielle D'AmbrosioDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Amy ChadburnDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Lars WestbladeDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Marshall GlesbyDepartment of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Massimo LodaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Melissa M CushingDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Zhen ZhaoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: zhz9010@med.cornell.edu.
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USNew York State Department of Health · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need for comprehensive performance evaluation and clinical utility assessment of serological assays to understand the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

methodsIgM/IgG and total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were measured by a cyclic enhanced fluorescence assay (CEFA) and a microsphere immunoassay (MIA), respectively. Independent performance evaluation included imprecision, reproducibility, specificity and cross-reactivity (CEFA n = 320, MIA n = 364). Clinical utility was evaluated by both methods in 87 patients at initial emergency department visit, 28 during subsequent hospitalizations (106 serial samples), and 145 convalescent patients. Totally 916 patients and 994 samples were evaluated.

resultsAgreement of CEFA and MIA was 90.4%-94.5% (Kappa: 0.81-0.89) in 302 samples. CEFA and MIA detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 26.2% and 26.3%, respectively, of ED patients. Detection rates increased over time reaching 100% after 21 days post-symptom onset. Longitudinal antibody kinetic changes by CEFA and MIA measurements correlated well and exhibited three types of seroconversion. Convalescent sera showed a wide range of antibody levels.

conclusionRigorously validated CEFA and MIA assays are reliable for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and show promising clinical utility when evaluating immune response in hospitalized and convalescent patients, but are not useful for early screening at patient's initial ED visit.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralClinical Laboratory TechniquesCohort StudiesConvalescenceCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Emergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalizationHumansImmunoassayLongitudinal StudiesAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)ImmunoassaySerologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Identifiers

PMID32505774
PMCPMC7272145
OpenAlexW3033900878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.