Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33418886›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Anja Dörschug, Julian Schwanbeck, Andreas Hahn, Anke Hillebrecht, Sabine Blaschke, Kemal Mese, Uwe Groß, Sascha Dierks, Hagen Frickmann, Andreas E Zautner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Anja DörschugInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Julian SchwanbeckInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2803-0167
Andreas HahnInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-8369
Anke HillebrechtInterdisciplinary Emergency Department, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Sabine BlaschkeInterdisciplinary Emergency Department, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8800-7554
Kemal MeseInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Uwe GroßInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Sascha DierksInstitute for Clinical Chemistry, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Hagen FrickmannInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8967-9528
Andreas E ZautnerInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2serologysurveillancetest comparison

Identifiers

PMID33418886
PMCPMC7825051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.