ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Evaluation of a Broad Panel of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Diagnostic Use.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Population-based study of the durability of humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines for Short- and Long-Term Immunity: A General Overview for the Pandemic Contrast.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Comparative Investigation of Methods for Analysis of SARS-CoV-2-Spike-Specific Antisera.Viruses · 2022Article
- Ultrasensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins Using the Thio-NAD Cycling Reaction: A Preliminary Study before Clinical Trials.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Spectrum Bias and Individual Strengths of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests-A Population-Based Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Serological testing is crucial in detection of previous infection and in monitoring convalescent and vaccine-induced immunity. During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, numerous assay platforms have been developed and marketed for clinical use. Several studies recently compared clinical performance of a limited number of serological tests, but broad comparative evaluation is currently missing. Within this study, a panel of 161 sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected, seasonal CoV-infected and SARS-CoV-2 naïve subjects was enrolled to evaluate 16 ELISA/ECLIA-based and 16 LFA-based tests. Specificities of all ELISA/ECLIA-based assays were acceptable and generally in agreement with the providers' specifications, but sensitivities were lower as specified. Results of the LFAs were less accurate as compared to the ELISAs, albeit with some exceptions. We found a sporadic unequal immune response for different antigens and thus recommend the use of a nucleocapsid protein (N)- and spike protein (S)-based test combination when maximal sensitivity is necessary. Finally, the quality of the immune response in terms of neutralization should be tested using S-based IgG tests.
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.