Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33826651›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Clinical utility of targeted SARS-CoV-2 serology testing to aid the diagnosis and management of suspected missed, late or post-COVID-19 infection syndromes: Results from a pilot service implemented during the first pandemic wave.

Nicola Sweeney, Blair Merrick, Rui Pedro Galão, Suzanne Pickering, Alina Botgros, Harry D Wilson, Adrian W Signell, Gilberto Betancor, Mark Kia Ik Tan, John Ramble and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

22 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola SweeneyDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Blair MerrickDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6061-6064
Rui Pedro GalãoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3368-5053
Suzanne PickeringDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alina BotgrosDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Harry D WilsonDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Adrian W SignellDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gilberto BetancorDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mark Kia Ik TanDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7774-3836
John RambleInfection Sciences, Viapath LLP, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Neophytos KouphouDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4945-8640
Sam AcorsDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6428-7707
Carl GrahamDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jeffrey SeowDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Eithne MacMahonDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Stuart J D NeilDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael H MalimDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Katie DooresDepartment of Infectious Diseases, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5507-1725
Sam DouthwaiteDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Rahul BatraDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Gaia NebbiaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan D EdgeworthDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S023747/1NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201400008CWellcome Trust 106223/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 207442/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust MR/S023747/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the first wave of the global COVID-19 pandemic the clinical utility and indications for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing were not clearly defined. The urgency to deploy serological assays required rapid evaluation of their performance characteristics. We undertook an internal validation of a CE marked lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) (SureScreen Diagnostics) using serum from SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive individuals and pre-pandemic samples. This was followed by the delivery of a same-day named patient SARS-CoV-2 serology service using LFIA on vetted referrals at central London teaching hospital with clinical interpretation of result provided to the direct care team. Assay performance, source and nature of referrals, feasibility and clinical utility of the service, particularly benefit in clinical decision-making, were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity of LFIA were 96.1% and 99.3% respectively. 113 tests were performed on 108 participants during three-week pilot. 44% participants (n = 48) had detectable antibodies. Three main indications were identified for serological testing; new acute presentations potentially triggered by recent COVID-19 e.g. pulmonary embolism (n = 5), potential missed diagnoses in context of a recent COVID-19 compatible illness (n = 40), and making infection control or immunosuppression management decisions in persistently SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR positive individuals (n = 6). We demonstrate acceptable performance characteristics, feasibility and clinical utility of using a LFIA that detects anti-spike antibodies to deliver SARS-CoV-2 serology service in adults and children. Greatest benefit was seen where there is reasonable pre-test probability and results can be linked with clinical advice or intervention. Experience from this pilot can help inform practicalities and benefits of rapidly implementing new tests such as LFIAs into clinical service as the pandemic evolves.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingPandemicsAdultFemaleHumansMaleSARS-CoV-2Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID33826651
PMCPMC8026061
OpenAlexW3143069184

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.