Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33806216›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Five Commercial Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Determination and Their Comparison and Correlation with the Virus Neutralization Test.

Václav Šimánek, Ladislav Pecen, Zuzana Krátká, Tomáš Fürst, Hana Řezáčková, Ondřej Topolčan, Karel Fajfrlík, Dalibor Sedláček, Robin Šín, Petr Pazdiora and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Václav ŠimánekDepartment of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Ladislav PecenDepartment of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Zuzana KrátkáLaboratory of Immunology, Gennet, 110 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
Tomáš FürstFaculty of Science, Palacky University in Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Hana ŘezáčkováDepartment of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Ondřej TopolčanDepartment of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Karel FajfrlíkDepartment of Microbiology, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Dalibor SedláčekDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Travel Medicine, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4711-6679
Robin ŠínDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Travel Medicine, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4410-9078
Petr PazdioraInstitute of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, 305 99 Pilsen, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8414-3874
Hana ZelenáDepartment of Virology, Public Health Institute, 702 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic.
David SloukaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital in Pilsen, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, 305 99 Pilsen, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3988-7898
Radek KučeraDepartment of Immunochemistry Diagnostics, University Hospital in Pilsen, 309 55 Pilsen, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-2739-2302

Funding

BBMRI-CZ Biobank network - a versatile platform for the research of the etiopathogenesis of diseases (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001674) and Bank of the clinical samples (LM2018125)Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky Conceptual Development of Research Organization - University Hospital Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate as to whether SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be found in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 disease. Currently, there is no consensus on whether the antibodies, if present, are protective. Our regular measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, starting in July 2020, have provided us with the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the five different immunoassays. A total of 149 patients were enrolled in our study. We measured the samples using each immunoassay, then performing a virus neutralization test and comparing the results of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with this test. We observed that the production of neutralizing antibodies is age-dependent. Elderly patients have a higher proportion of high neutralizing titers than young patients. Based on our results, and in combination with the literature findings, we can conclude that the serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement is a helpful tool in the fight against COVID-19. The assays can provide information about the patient's previous contact with the virus. Anti-spike protein assays correlate well with the virus neutralization test and can be used in the screening of potential convalescent plasma donors.

Indexed as

antibodyimmunoassaynucleocapsid proteinSARS-CoV-2serological diagnosticsspike proteinvirus neutralization test

Identifiers

PMID33806216
PMCPMC8065578

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.