ArticleJournal of medical virology2020
Comparison and application of different immunoassay methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Ultrasensitive imaging-based sensor unlocked by differential guided-mode resonance.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Gene editing and its applications in biomedicine.Science China. Life sciences · 2022Review
- China's NMPA perspective on the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen test reagents.Bioanalysis · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Performance of Detection of Immunoglobulin G and Immunoglobulin M Antibody Against Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 by a Rapid Kit in a Real-Life Hospital Setting.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Rapid and sensitive detection of L-FABP for prediction and diagnosis of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients by chemiluminescent immunoassay.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- Key points of technical review for the registration of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibody tests.Bioanalysis · 2021Article
- Comparison and application of different immunoassay methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of medical virology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection data of IgM and IgG antibodies in 169 patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) were analyzed to evaluate differences in clinical performance between the colloidal gold method and chemiluminescence method. In this study, chemiluminescence detection of IgM antibody showed a positive conversion earlier (about 1-2 days earlier), positive conversion rates higher in different stages of disease, and a trend of declining positive rate later than colloidal gold method. For IgG antibody, the chemiluminescence method showed a positive conversion earlier and the positive rate climbing more quickly than the colloidal gold method. No obvious negative-converting tendency of IgG detection was observed within 35 days after the onset of disease. Although colloidal gold method is generally less sensitive than chemiluminescence method, it shows advantages of shorter turn-around time, more simple procedure, and no special equipment required. The two methodologies can be chosen according to different laboratory conditions. A reasonable understanding of the performance of reagents with different methodologies can help in clinical disease diagnosis effectively and assist in the diagnosis of the progression of COVID-19, for which the dynamic changes of antibody will provide reliable evidence.
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.