ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021
Real-world experience of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in UK healthcare workers.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 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.
- Slipping through the net: a qualitative study exploring women's experiences of maternity in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Diagnostics and analysis of SARS-CoV-2: current status, recent advances, challenges and perspectives.Chemical science · 2023Review
- VIVALDI Cohort Profile: Using linked, routinely collected data and longitudinal blood sampling to characterise COVID-19 infections, vaccinations, and related outcomes in care home staff and residents in England.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Article
- New wine in old skins.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers is variable throughout the world. This study compares the use of two antibody assays among large cohorts of healthcare workers in southern England.
methodsThis cohort study includes data obtained from staff at Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (WSHT) and Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals (BSUH) during voluntary antibody testing, using Abbott and Roche SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays at each Trust respectively.
resultsThe observed seroprevalence level was 7.9% for the WSHT/Abbott cohort versus 13% for the BSUH/Roche cohort. Based on a previous positive PCR, we find that the false-negative rate of the Abbott and Roche assays were 60.2% and 19% respectively, implying sensitivity levels of 39.8% and 81%. Within these cohorts, seropositivity was most strongly associated with those of South Asian ethnicity, allied health professionals and male sex (p<0.0001).
conclusionsIn this real-world study, neither antibody test performed to the specification level stated by the manufacturer. More rigorous testing of these and other assays in target populations is recommended prior to widespread usage if they are to provide data that might be useful to control the pandemic.
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.