ArticleClinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry2021
Evaluation of 32 rapid tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosing acute lower respiratory tract infections in out-of-hours services during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV2 Infections in Health Care Personnel in a Long-Term Care Institution After the First Wave of the Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.Workplace health & safety · 2023Article
- Applications of nanobodies in the prevention, detection, and treatment of the evolving SARS-CoV-2.Biochemical pharmacology · 2023Review
- Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralisation capacity-lateral flow immunoassay evaluation compared to commercial assay to inform potential role in therapeutic and surveillance practices.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Lateral Flow Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Disease Prevalence Matters: Challenge for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.Antibodies (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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the analytical performance of 32 rapid tests for detection of antibodies against coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used at total of 262 serum samples (197 pre-pandemic and 65 convalescent COVID-19), and three criteria to evaluate the rapid tests under standardized and optimal conditions: (i) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) specificity "good" if lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was ≥ 97.0%, "acceptable" if point estimate was ≥ 97.0%, otherwise "not acceptable". (ii) IgG sensitivity "good" if point estimate was ≥ 90.0%, "acceptable" if ≥ 85.0%, otherwise "not acceptable". (iii) User-friendliness "not acceptable" if complicated to perform or difficult to read result, otherwise "good". We also included partial evaluations of three automated immunoassay systems.
resultsSensitivity and specificity varied considerably; IgG specificity between 90.9% (85.9-94.2) and 100% (97.7-100.0), and IgG sensitivity between 53.8% (41.9-65.4) and 98.5% (91.0-100.0). Combining our evaluation criteria, none of the 28 rapid tests that detected IgG had an overall performance considered "good", seven tests were considered "acceptable", while 21 tests were considered "not acceptable". Four tests detected only total antibodies and were not given an overall evaluation. IgG sensitivity and/or specificity of the automated immunoassays did not exceed that of many rapid tests.
conclusionWhen prevalence is low, the most important analytical property is a test's IgG specificity, which must be high to minimize false positive results. Out of 32 rapid tests, none had a performance classified as "good", but seven were classified as "acceptable".
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.