Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32961429›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2020

A comparative evaluation between the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device and Abbott Architect™ SARS CoV-2 IgG assay.

Rahul Batra, Luis Gonzalez Olivieri, Delfin Rubin, Ana Vallari, Sandra Pearce, Ana Olivo, John Prostko, Gaia Nebbia, Sam Douthwaite, Mary Rodgers and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Limitations of point-of-care testing for low SARS CoV-2 loads: Insights for future pandemics.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation of the performance of 25 SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests using a reference panel of plasma specimens at the Uganda Virus Research Institute.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 total antibody detection via a lateral flow nanoparticle fluorescence immunoassay.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rahul BatraGuy's and St Thomas' Hospital, NHS, UK.
Luis Gonzalez OlivieriAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, IL, USA. Electronic address: luis.gonzalezo@abbott.com.
Delfin RubinAbbott Rapid Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Ana VallariAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Sandra PearceAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Ana OlivoAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
John ProstkoAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Gaia NebbiaGuy's and St Thomas' Hospital, NHS, UK.
Sam DouthwaiteGuy's and St Thomas' Hospital, NHS, UK.
Mary RodgersAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Gavin ClohertyAbbott Diagnostics, IL, USA.
Abbott (United States) · USSt Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAntibodies to SARS-CoV-2 serve as critical diagnostic markers for determining how broadly the COVID-19 pandemic has spread, confirming patient recovery, monitoring potential long-term effects of infection, and evaluating potential protection from reinfection. As new antibody tests become available, it is important to evaluate their performance and utility. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Abbott Panbio

methodsTwo panels of specimens were utilized to challenge both antibody tests: (1) a set of 150 prepandemic negative specimens collected in 2014, and (2) a set of 122 specimens from 87 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US and UK that were confirmed with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test result.

resultsThe Architect

conclusionThere is good concordance between the Architect

Indexed as

COVID-19 TestingSerologic TestsAgedAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19HumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MAntibodiesCOVID-19InfectionSARS-CoV-2Serology

Identifiers

PMID32961429
PMCPMC7493757
OpenAlexW3087035354

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.