ArticleBiochemia medica2021
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for eight SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV2 Infections in Health Care Personnel in a Long-Term Care Institution After the First Wave of the Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.Workplace health & safety · 2023Article
- Hypogammaglobulinemia is associated with reduced antibody response after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in MS patients treated with antiCD20 therapies.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Multiplex Bead Assay against Single-Target Assays for Detection of IgG Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Performance assessment of seven SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests Show High Cross-Reactivity When Challenged with Pre-Pandemic Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Dengue Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Adverse Life Trajectories Are a Risk Factor for SARS-CoV-2 IgA Seropositivity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- CRISPR/Cas System: A Potential Technology for the Prevention and Control of COVID-19 and Emerging Infectious Diseases.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests have been suggested as an additional diagnostic tool in highly suspected cases with a negative molecular test and determination of seroprevalence in population. We compared the diagnostic performance of eight commercial serological assays for IgA, IgM, and IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe comparison study was performed on a total of 76 serum samples: 30 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-negative and 46 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients with asymptomatic to severe disease and symptoms duration from 3-30 days. The study included: three rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIC), two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), and three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA).
resultsAgreement between IgM assays were minimal to moderate (kappa 0.26 to 0.63) and for IgG moderate to excellent (kappa 0.72 to 0.92). Sensitivities improved with > 10 days of symptoms and were: 30% to 89% for IgM; 89% to 100% for IgG; 96% for IgA; 100% for IgA/IgM combination; 96% for total antibodies. Overall specificities were: 90% to 100% for IgM; 85% to 100% for IgG; 90% for IgA; 70% for IgA/IgM combination; 100% for total antibodies. Diagnostic accuracy for IgG ELISA and CIA assays were excellent (AUC ≥ 0.90), without significant difference. IgA showed significantly better diagnostic accuracy than IgM (P < 0.001).
conclusionThere is high variability between IgM assays independently of the assay format, while IgG assays showed moderate to perfect agreement. The appropriate time for testing is crucial for the proper immunity investigation.
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.