Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33039095›Full record

ArticlePathology2020

Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antibody tests.

Roselle S Robosa, Indy Sandaradura, Dominic E Dwyer, Matthew V N O'Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the health of university students.The International journal of health planning and management · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Roselle S RobosaCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, New South Wales Health Pathology - Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Indy SandaraduraCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, New South Wales Health Pathology - Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Dominic E DwyerCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, New South Wales Health Pathology - Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Matthew V N O'SullivanCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, New South Wales Health Pathology - Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: matthew.osullivan@health.nsw.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the analytic and clinical performance of four rapid lateral flow point-of-care tests (POCTs) for identifying SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. A retrospective study was conducted between 22 January and 30 March 2020 on 132 serum samples for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detection referred to a tertiary referral hospital laboratory in New South Wales. Multiple sera were tested from 20 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients with SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies detected by immunofluorescence (IFA) or neutralisation, and 71 SARS-CoV-2 uninfected individuals. We measured the sensitivity and specificity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies for each POCT in comparison to positive SARS-CoV-2-specific IFA and viral neutralisation, our current laboratory benchmark tests. All POCTs were found to have a low analytic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, ranging from 27.3% to 58.2%, with a specificity between 88.3% and 100%, and a low clinical sensitivity from 45% to 65%, with a clinical specificity between 87.3% and 100%. All POCTs had an increased sensitivity when specimens were collected more than 14 days from onset of symptoms. The detection using point-of-care testing of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies after disease onset lagged behind IFA by a range of 0-9 days. POCTs promise the benefit of providing quick easy testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. However, their poor sensitivity and delayed antibody detection make them unsuitable as a diagnostic or screening tool alone.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralChildChild, PreschoolCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralCOVID-19point-of-care testingSARS-CoV-2serology

Identifiers

PMID33039095
PMCPMC7508500

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.