ArticlePloS one2021
Comparison of three serological chemiluminescence immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2, and clinical significance of antibody index with disease severity.
Article in PloS one, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection over two epidemic waves in Manaus, Brazil: A serological study of seven thousand blood donors.PloS one · 2025Article
- Optimal decision theory for diagnostic testing: Minimizing indeterminate classes with applications to saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.Mathematical biosciences · 2022Article
- Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.EJIFCC · 2022Review
- Immunologic features of asymptomatic postvaccination infections with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 in adults.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2022Article
- Article
- Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in five different groups of individuals at different environmental and professional risk of infection.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical significance of the quantitative value of antibodies in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains mostly unidentified. We investigated the dynamics and clinical implications of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody over time using three automated chemiluminescence immunoassays targeting either nucleocapsids or spikes.
methodsA total of 126 specimens were collected from 23 patients with confirmed and indeterminate COVID-19 identified by molecular tests. SARS-CoV-2 antibody index was measured using SARS-CoV2 IgG reagent from Alinity (Abbott) and Access (Beckman Coulter) and SARS-CoV2 Total (IgG + IgM) from Atellica (Siemens).
resultsThree immunoassays showed strong correlations with each other (range of Pearson' s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.700-0.854, P < 0.001). Eleven (8.7%) specimens showed inconsistencies. SARS-CoV-2 IgG showed a statistically significantly higher value in patients with severe disease than that in non-severe disease patients (P < 0.001) and was significantly associated with clinical markers of disease severity.
conclusionThe quantitative value of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody measured using automated immunoassays is a significant indicator of clinical severity in patients with COVID-19.
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.