Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33733395›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Evaluation of 18 commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in paired serum samples.

Daniëlle A T Hanssen, Michiel Slaats, Marlies Mulder, Paul H M Savelkoul, Inge H M van Loo

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Performance of a SARS CoV-2 antibody ELISA based on simultaneous measurement of antibodies against the viral nucleoprotein and receptor-binding domain.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniëlle A T Hanssen *Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, PO 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2401-2703
Michiel Slaats *Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, PO 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marlies Mulder *Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, PO 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Paul H M SavelkoulDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, PO 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Inge H M van LooDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, PO 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. IHM.van.Loo@mumc.nl.
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of serological tests have been developed to detect the presence of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated the performance of 18 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Early (6-8 days after the start of symptoms) and late sera (>14 days) from ICU patients (n=10 and n=16, respectively) and healthcare workers (n=5 and n=9, respectively) were included. Additionally, 22 sera were included to detect potential cross-reactivity. Test characteristics were determined for the 18 assays. In >14 days samples, the Vircell IgG and Wantai Ig ELISAs had superior sensitivity compared to the other ELISAs (96%). Furthermore, the Roche Ig, the Epitope Diagnostics IgM, Wantai IgM, Euroimmun IgG, and IgA all showed a specificity of 100%. The POCTs of Boson Biotech and ACRO Biotech showed the highest sensitivities: 100% and 96% (83.5-99.8), respectively. The POCT of Orient Gene Biotech, VOMED Diagnostics, and Coris-Bioconcept showed highest specificities (100%). For the IgM and IgA assays, the Euroimmun IgA test showed the highest sensitivity in early samples: 46.7% (23.5-70.9) to 53.3% (29.1-76.5). In general, all tests performed better in patients with severe symptoms (ICU patients). We conclude that the Wantai Ig and Vircell IgG ELISAs may be suitable for diagnostic purposes. The IgM/IgA tests performed poorer than their IgG/Ig counterparts but may have a role in diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 in a population in which the background seroprevalence of IgG high, and IgM and/or IgA may distinguish between acute or past infection.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Serological TestingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MAntibody testingECLIAELISAPOCTSARS-CoV-2serology

Identifiers

PMID33733395
PMCPMC7968571
OpenAlexW3136966603

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.