ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2021
Head-to-head validation of six immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.
Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status in six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May to November 2022.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- Performance assessment of a new serological diagnostic test for COVID-19 with candidate peptides from spike and nucleocapsid viral proteins.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024Article
- Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Recent advances in point of care testing for COVID-19 detection.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2022Review
- Bi-ECDAQ: An electrochemical dual-immuno-biosensor accompanied by a customized bi-potentiostat for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid proteins.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2022Article
- Differences in SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first and second wave of SARS-CoV-2 between six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: A population-based longitudinal serological study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed.
methodsWe validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes.
resultsOverall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively.
conclusionWe conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.
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.