ArticlePloS one2021
Comparison of the clinical performance and usefulness of five SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of in-house ELISA and two commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Humoral cross-coronavirus responses against the S2 region in children with Kawasaki disease.Virology · 2022Article
- Age- and sex-based changes in spike protein antibody status after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and effect of past-infection in healthcare workers in Osaka.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study.Allergy · 2022Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Six Immunoassays in Pediatric and Adult Patients 12 Weeks After COVID-19.Cureus · 2022Article
- Serological Assays for Assessing Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Medium-term serostatus in Spanish case series recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- Usefulness of IVD Kits for the Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies to Evaluate the Humoral Response to Vaccination.Vaccines · 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
20 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the usefulness of five COVID-19 antibody detection tests using 114 serum samples at various time points from 34 Japanese COVID-19 patients. We examined Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 from Roche, and four immunochromatography tests from Hangzhou Laihe Biotech, Artron Laboratories, Chil, and Nadal. In the first week after onset, Elecsys had 40% positivity in Group S (severe cases) but was negative in Group M (mild-moderate cases). The immunochromatography kits showed 40-60% and 0-8% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. In the second week, Elecsys showed 75% and 50% positivity, and the immunochromatography tests showed 5-80% and 50-75% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. After the third week, Elecsys showed 100% positivity in both groups. The immunochromatography kits showed 100% positivity in Group S. In Group M, positivity decreased to 50% for Chil and 75-89% for Artron and Lyher. Elecsys and immunochromatography kits had 91-100% specificity. Elecsys had comparable chronological change of cut-off index values in the two groups from the second week to the sixth week. The current SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests do not provide meaningful interpretation of severity and infection status. Its use might be limited to short-term epidemiological studies.
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.