ArticleBiology direct2020
Serological determinants of COVID-19.
Article in Biology direct, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies with a Screen-Printed Electrode Modified with a Spike Glycoprotein Epitope.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Redressing the interactions between stem cells and immune system in tissue regeneration.Biology direct · 2021Review
- Low level of plasminogen increases risk for mortality in COVID-19 patients.Cell death & disease · 2021Article
- Validation and performance comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2021Article
- The Odd Faces of Oligomers: The Case of TRAF2-C, A Trimeric C-Terminal Domain of TNF Receptor-Associated Factor.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Ultramicronized Palmitoylethanolamide (um-PEA): A New Possible Adjuvant Treatment in COVID-19 patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Utility of Specific Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 in Laboratory Diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection spreaded rapidly worldwide, as far as it has become a global pandemic. Therefore, the introduction of serological tests for determination of IgM and IgG antibodies has become the main diagnostic tool, useful for tracking the spread of the virus and for consequently allowing its containment. In our study we compared point of care test (POCT) lateral flow immunoassay (FIA) vs automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), in order to assess their specificity and sensibility for COVID-19 antibodies detection.
resultsWe find that different specificities and sensitivities for IgM and IgG tests. Notably IgM POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) has a low sensitivity (0.526), while IgG POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) test has a much higher sensitivity (0.937); further, with respect of IgG, FIA and CLIA could arguably provide equivalent information.
conclusionsFIA method could be helpful in assessing in short time, the possible contagiousness of subjects that for work reasons cannot guarantee "social distancing".
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.