ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
Evaluation of commercially available immuno-magnetic agglutination in comparison to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for rapid point-of-care diagnostics of COVID-19.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Concise Review of the Control and Assessment of Magnetic Affinity Particle Assembly for Live Cell Analyses: State of the Art and Challenges.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- IgG and IgM differentiation in a particle-based agglutination assay by control over antigen surface density.APL bioengineering · 2024Article
- Rapid Quantitative Point-Of-Care Diagnostic Test for Post COVID-19 Vaccination Antibody Monitoring.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Testing-The Key in the Battle against SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Micromachines · 2021Review
- Evaluation of commercially available immuno-magnetic agglutination in comparison to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for rapid point-of-care diagnostics of COVID-19.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Fast, accurate, and simple blood-based assays for quantification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed to identify infected individuals and keep track of the spread of disease.
methodsThe study included 33 plasma samples from 20 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and 40 non-COVID-19 plasma samples. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM)/immunoglobulin A (IgA) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were detected by a microfluidic quantitative immunomagnetic assay (IMA) (ViroTrack Sero COVID IgM + IgA/IgG Ab, Blusense Diagnostics) and compared to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EuroImmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika).
resultsOf the 33 plasma samples from the COVID-19 patients, 28 were positive for IgA/IgM or IgG by IMA and 29 samples were positive by ELISA. Sensitivity for only one sample per patient was 68% for IgA + IgM and 75% IgG by IMA and 80% by ELISA. For samples collected 14 days after symptom onset, the sensitivity of both IMA and ELISA was around 91%. The specificity of the IMA reached 100% compared to 95% for ELISA IgA and 97.5% for ELISA IgG.
conclusionIMA for COVID-19 is a rapid simple-to-use point-of-care test with sensitivity and specificity similar to a commercial ELISA.
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.