Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33424863›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2020

Evaluation of Two Chemiluminescent and Three ELISA Immunoassays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies: Implications for Disease Diagnosis and Patients' Management.

Matthaios Speletas, Maria A Kyritsi, Alexandros Vontas, Aikaterini Theodoridou, Theofilos Chrysanthidis, Sophia Hatzianastasiou, Efthimia Petinaki, Christos Hadjichristodoulou

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Matthaios SpeletasDepartment of Immunology & Histocompatibility, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Maria A KyritsiLaboratory of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Alexandros VontasLaboratory of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Aikaterini TheodoridouDepartment of Immunology & Histocompatibility, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Theofilos ChrysanthidisFirst Internal Medicine Department, Infectious Diseases Division, AHEPA Hospital, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Sophia HatzianastasiouNational Public Health Organization, Athens, Greece.
Efthimia PetinakiDepartment of Microbiology, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Christos HadjichristodoulouLaboratory of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The estimation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies is possibly the best approach to accurately establish the number of infected individuals and the seroprevalence of COVID-19 within a population. Thus, several commercial immunoassays have recently been developed. The purpose of our study was to assess the performance of five commonly used immunoassays in Greece (3 ELISA, namely Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2, GA GENERIC SARS-CoV-2 and Vircell COVID-19; and 2 chemiluminescent, namely ABBOTT SARS-CoV-2 and ROCHE Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test) for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Sera specimens derived from 168 individuals were utilized to assess the specificity and sensitivity score of each assay. Among them, we included 99 COVID-19 patients (29 asymptomatic, 36 with symptom onset 4 to 14 days before serum sampling, and 34 with symptom initiation ≥ 15 days ago), and 69 volunteers with sera specimens collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and maintained at -80°C. We demonstrated that chemiluminescent immunoassays exhibit a significantly higher specificity score but a lower sensitivity, compared to ELISA immunoassays. Moreover, immunoassays detecting IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 N protein instead of S protein alone are more reliable, considering both specificity and sensitivity scores. Interestingly, all asymptomatic patients displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, confirmed by at least two immunoassays. We suggest that chemiluminescent assays could be used as screening methods for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to evaluate the possible prevalence of disease in the general population, while ELISA assays would be more reliable to evaluate, and follow-up confirmed COVID-19 patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19 TestingImmunoassayLuminescent MeasurementsAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19HumansImmunoglobulin GSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySeroepidemiologic StudiesAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GchemiluminescentCOVID-19ELISAIgGimmunoassay

Identifiers

PMID33424863
PMCPMC7785794

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.