Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871824›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2021

Comparative analysis of three point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: data from 100 healthcare workers in Brazil.

Danielle Dias Conte, Joseane Mayara Almeida Carvalho, Luciano Kleber de Souza Luna, Klinger Soares Faíco-Filho, Ana Helena Perosa, Nancy Bellei

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Danielle Dias ConteDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4351-0831
Joseane Mayara Almeida CarvalhoDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1186-8895
Luciano Kleber de Souza LunaDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. lksluna@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-5507
Klinger Soares Faíco-FilhoDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2071-0061
Ana Helena PerosaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hospital São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Nancy BelleiDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6080-5693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Brazil has the third-highest number of confirmed cases and the second-highest number of recovered patients. SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR is the gold standard but requires a certified laboratory infrastructure with high-cost equipment and trained personnel. However, for large-scale testing, diagnostics should be fast, cost-effective, widely available, and deployed for the community, such as serological tests based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgM/IgG detection. We evaluated three different commercial point-of-care (POC) LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in capillary whole blood of 100 healthcare workers (HCW) from São Paulo university hospital previously tested by RT-PCR: (1) COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), (2) Diagnostic Kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (Livzon, China), and (3) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo, China). A total of 84 positives and 16 negatives HCW were tested. The data was also analyzed by the number of days post symptoms (DPS) in three groups: <30 (n=26), 30-59 (n=42), and >59 (n=16). The observed sensibility was 85.71%, 47.62%, and 44.05% for Bioclin, Wondfo, and Livzon, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all LFIA. Bioclin was more sensitive (p<0.01), regardless of the DPS. Thus, the Bioclin may be used as a POC test to monitor SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in HCW.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Serological TestingPoint-of-Care TestingAdultAgedAntibodies, ViralBrazilCOVID-19Health PersonnelHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MCOVID-19Healthcare workersLateral flow immunoassayPoint-of-careSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33871824
PMCPMC8053894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.