Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33379092›Full record

ReviewTalanta2021

Technical considerations to development of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2.

Emilie Ernst, Patricia Wolfe, Corrine Stahura, Katie A Edwards

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Talanta, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Development of gold nanoparticle-based biosensors for COVID-19 diagnosis.Beni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emilie ErnstDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Binghamton University, Johnson City, NY, 13790, USA. Electronic address: eernst1@binghamton.edu.
Patricia WolfeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Binghamton University, Johnson City, NY, 13790, USA. Electronic address: pwolfe@binghamton.edu.
Corrine StahuraDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Binghamton University, Johnson City, NY, 13790, USA. Electronic address: cstahur1@binghamton.edu.
Katie A EdwardsDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Binghamton University, Johnson City, NY, 13790, USA. Electronic address: kedwards@binghamton.edu.
Binghamton University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide and has brought clinical assays both for acute diagnosis and prior exposure determination to the forefront. Serological testing intended for point-of-care or laboratory use can be used to determine more accurate individual and population assessments of prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2; improve our understanding of the degree to which immunity is conveyed to subsequent exposures; and quantify immune response to future vaccines. In response to this pandemic, initially more than 90 companies deployed serology assays to the U.S. market, many of which made overstated claims for their accuracy, regulatory approval status, and utility for intended purpose. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently instituted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) procedure requiring that manufacturers submit validation data, but allowing newly developed serological tests to be marketed without the usual approval process during this crisis. Although this rapid deployment was intended to benefit public health, the incomplete understanding of immune response to the virus and lack of assay vetting resulted in quality issues with some of these tests, and thus many were withdrawn after submission. Common assay platforms include lateral flow assays which can serve an important niche of low cost, rapid turnaround, and increased accessibility whereas established laboratory-based platforms based on ELISAs and chemiluminescence expand existing technologies to SARS-CoV-2 and can provide throughput and quantification capabilities. While most of the currently EUA assays rely on these well-established platforms, despite their apparent technical simplicity, there are numerous practical challenges both for manufacturers in developing and for end-users in running and interpreting such assays. Within are discussed technical challenges to serology development for SARS-CoV-2, with an emphasis on lateral flow assay technology.

Indexed as

Antibodies, ViralCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingHumansImmunoassayLimit of DetectionPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralCOVID-19ImmunoassaysLateral flow assayRapid diagnosticsSARS-CoV-2Serological testing

Identifiers

PMID33379092
PMCPMC7654332
OpenAlexW3104460554

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.