ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point-of-Care Testing.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Healthy donor T cell responses to common cold coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2020Trial
- Comparison of NADAL COVID IgG/IgM rapid test and DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay across different blood sources and substrates.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Evaluation of three alternative methods to the plaque reduction neutralizing assay for measuring neutralizing antibodies to dengue virus serotype 2.Virology journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of eight lateral flow tests for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a vaccinated population.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Analytical performance of rapid nucleic acid detection assays and routine RT-qPCR assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Shanghai, China in 2022.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Clinical and laboratory considerations: determining an antibody-based composite correlate of risk for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or severe COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- An Internet-of-Disease System for COVID-19 Testing Using Saliva by an AI-Controlled Microfluidic ELISA Device.Advanced materials technologies · 2022Article
- The feasibility of multiple units of convalescent plasma in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: A pilot study.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2022Article
- Antibody-Invertase Fusion Protein Enables Quantitative Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Using Widely Available Glucometers.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2022Article
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Seroprevalence in Decedents Undergoing Forensic Postmortem Examination: Feasibility for Real-Time Pandemic Surveillance.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Multiplexed COVID-19 antibody quantification from human sera using label-free nanoplasmonic biosensors.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Differentiation of Individuals Previously Infected with and Vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 in an Inner-City Emergency Department.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- RapidQ: A reader-free microfluidic platform for the quantitation of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.Biomicrofluidics · 2022Article
- Technical performance of a lateral flow immunoassay for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the outpatient follow-up of non-severe cases and at different times after vaccination: comparison with enzyme and chemiluminescent immunoassays.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2022Article
- Comparative performance of multiplex salivary and commercially available serologic assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralization titers.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021Article
- Multicentric evaluation of a novel point of care electrochemical ELISA platform for SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG and IgM antibody assay.Journal of virological methods · 2021Article
- Assessment of the Field Utility of a Rapid Point-of-Care Test for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Household Cohort.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2021Article
- Article
- A Hemagglutination-Based Semiquantitative Test for Point-of-Care Determination of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
22 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.
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.