ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Comprehensive evaluation of eight commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the systemic and mucosal immune response induced by COVID-19 and the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for SARS-CoV-2.PloS one · 2022Article
- Serology in COVID-19: Comparison of Two Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensitivity and specificity of serological assays are key parameters for the accurate estimation of SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence. The aim of this study was to compare 8 readily available IgG antibody tests using a panel of well-defined serum samples of prepandemic and pandemic origin. A cross-reaction panel included samples of patients with recent infection with either of the endemic Coronaviruses 229E, NL63, HKU1, or OC43. Additionally, samples with high antibody levels against influenza virus, adenovirus, and during acute EBV infection were included. Previous infection with endemic coronaviruses caused a significant amount of cross-reactivity in two of the assays. In contrast, the confidence intervals for the assays of Abbott, DiaSorin, Euroimmun and Roche encompassed the value of 98% for samples with a previous endemic HCoV infection. For all assays, sensitivities were between 91.3% and 98.8%. Assay performance was independent of the usage of either nucleocapsid or spike proteins.
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.