ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
Development, performance evaluation, and clinical application of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG Test Kit based on automated fluorescence immunoassay.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Advances in Lateral Flow Assays for Viral Protein Detection with Nanomaterial-Based Optical Sensors.Biosensors · 2024Review
- Development of practical techniques for simultaneous detection and distinction of current and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2023Review
- Performance evaluation of in-house developed Covid-19 IgG/IgM antibody rapid diagnostic kit.AMB Express · 2023Article
- Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2: The gradual boom of lateral flow immunoassay.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19.Future virology · 2021Review
- Development, performance evaluation, and clinical application of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG Test Kit based on automated fluorescence immunoassay.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- Review
- Laboratory tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: basic principles and examples.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has made a huge impact on health, economies, and societies all over the world. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based nucleic acid detection has been primarily used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, it is time-consuming with limited application scenarios and must be operated by qualified personnel. Antibody test, particularly point-of-care antibody testing, is a suitable complement to nucleic acid test as it provides rapid, portable, and cost-effective detection of infections. In this study, a Rapid Antibody Test Kit was developed based on fluorescence immunochromatography for the sensitive, accurate, and automated detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human serum, plasma, and whole blood samples within 10 min. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and stability of the test kit were of good performance. No cross-activity and no interference was observed. In the multiple-center parallel study, 223 samples from hospitalized patients were used to evaluate the clinical specificity of the test. Both SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG achieved a clinical specificity of 98.21%. The clinical sensitivities of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG were 79.54% and 87.45%, respectively, among 733 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 samples. For the combined IgM and IgG assays, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.22% and 96.86%, respectively. Our results demonstrate that the combined use of IgM and IgG could serve as a more suitable alternative detection method for patients with COVID-19, and the developed kit is of great public health significance for the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.