ArticlePathology2021
SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the Southern Region of New Zealand, 2020.
Article in Pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 in one region of New Zealand: a descriptive epidemiological study.Australian and New Zealand journal of public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Charting elimination in the pandemic: a SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey of blood donors in New Zealand.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics in New Zealand.Clinical & translational immunology · 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
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During New Zealand's first outbreak in early 2020 the Southern Region had the highest per capita SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was initially limited by a narrow case definition and limited laboratory capacity, and cases may have been missed. Our objectives were to evaluate the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid assay, alongside spike-based assays, and to determine the frequency of antibodies among PCR-confirmed and probable cases, and higher risk individuals in the Southern Region of New Zealand. Pre-pandemic sera (n=300) were used to establish assay specificity and sera from PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (n=78) to establish sensitivity. For prevalence analysis, all samples (n=1214) were tested on the Abbott assay, and all PCR-confirmed cases (n=78), probable cases (n=9), and higher risk individuals with 'grey-zone' (n=14) or positive results (n=11) were tested on four additional SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. The median time from infection onset to serum collection for PCR-confirmed cases was 14 weeks (range 11-17 weeks). The Abbott assay demonstrated a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI 98.2-99.99%) and a sensitivity of 76.9% (95% CI 66.0-85.7%). Spike-based assays demonstrated superior sensitivity ranging 89.7-94.9%. Nine previously undiagnosed sero-positive individuals were identified, and all had epidemiological risk factors. Spike-based assays demonstrated higher sensitivity than the Abbott IgG assay, likely due to temporal differences in antibody persistence. No unexpected SARS-CoV-2 infections were found in the Southern Region of New Zealand, supporting the elimination status of the country at the time this study was conducted.
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.