ArticleMaternal and child health journal2020
Using Prenatal Blood Samples to Evaluate COVID-19 Rapid Serologic Tests Specificity.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Logistics Workers Are a Key Factor for SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Brazilian Small Towns: Case-Control Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northeastern Brazil since February 2020: evidence for antibody detection in asymptomatic patients.The Journal of infection · 2021Article
- Polymorphism and Selection Pressure of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine and Diagnostic Antigens: Implications for Immune Evasion and Serologic Diagnostic Performance.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Implementing COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBackground cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses may reduce the specificity of COVID-19 rapid serologic tests. The vast majority of women attend prenatal care, which is a unique source of population-based blood samples appropriate for validation studies. We used stored 2018 serum samples from an existing pregnancy cohort study to evaluate the specificity of COVID-19 serologic rapid diagnostic tests.
methodsWe randomly selected 120 stored serum samples from pregnant women enrolled in a cohort in 2018 in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, at least 1 year before the COVID-19 pandemic. We used stored serum to evaluate four lateral flow rapid diagnostic tests, following manufacturers' instructions. Pictures were taken for all tests and read by two blinded trained evaluators.
resultsWe evaluated 120, 80, 90, and 90 samples, respectively. Specificity for both IgM and IgG was 100% for the first two tests (95% confidence intervals [CI] 97.0-100 and 95.5-100, respectively). The third test had a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI 94.0-100) for IgM and 94.4% (95% CI 87.5-98.2) for IgG. The fourth test had a specificity of 88.9% (95% CI 80.5-94.5) for IgM and 100% (95% CI 96.0-100) for IgG. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 serologic rapid tests are of variable specificity. Blood specimens from sentinel prenatal clinics provide an opportunity to validate serologic tests with population-based samples.
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.