Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33350940›Full record

ArticleClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2021

How Useful is COVID-19 Antibody Testing - A Current Assessment for Oncologists.

P A C Maple, K Sikora

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P A C MapleClinical Neurology Research Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
K SikoraMedical Division, Rutherford Cancer Centres, London, UK. Electronic address: karol.sikora@therutherford.com.
London Cancer · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to infection by a new human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has seriously disrupted the provision of oncology services and their uptake. Antibody testing, both at an individual level and of populations, has been widely viewed to be a key activity for guiding the options for treatment of high-risk individuals, as well as the implementation of safe control of infection measures. Ideally, the detection of a specific antibody should signify that all individuals tested have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 and that in the case of specific IgG that they are immune to further infection. This would enable SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals to be appropriately managed and healthcare workers shown to be immune to return to work where they would no longer pose a risk to their patients or be at risk themselves. Unfortunately, this is not the case for COVID-19, where it has been shown that immunity may not be protective, and seroconversion delayed or absent. The variability in antibody test performance, particularly that of lateral flow assays, has caused confusion for the public and healthcare professions alike. Many antibody test devices have been made available without independent evaluations and these may lack both adequate sensitivity and specificity. This review seeks to educate healthcare workers, particularly those working in oncology, of the current benefits and limitations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing.

Indexed as

OncologistsCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingHumansImmunoassayMaleOccupational HealthSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodyCOVID-19lateral flow deviceoncologySARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33350940
PMCPMC7553121
OpenAlexW3093322849

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.