ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Increasing the Efficiency of a National Laboratory Response to COVID-19: a Nationwide Multicenter Evaluation of 47 Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays by 41 Laboratories.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of standardised seroprevalence studies, from January 2020 to December 2021.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- High exposure of pregnant women to SARS-CoV-2 during COVID-19 waves in Senegal.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of in-house ELISA and two commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 cellular and humoral responses in vaccine-naive individuals during the first two waves of COVID-19 infections in the southern region of The Netherlands: a cross-sectional population-based study.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Comprehensive, comparative evaluation of 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- The Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in an Exposed Human Population Is Biased by the Immunoassay Used: Implications in Serosurveillance.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Digital and Analog Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein via an Upconversion-Linked Immunosorbent Assay.Analytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serology in European expert laboratories, April 2021.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2022Article
- A Comparative Study of Nine SARS-CoV-2 IgG Lateral Flow Assays Using Both Post-Infection and Post-Vaccination Samples.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
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 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to the worldwide pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the subsequent antibody tests that flooded the market, a nationwide collaborative approach in the Netherlands was employed. Forty-one Dutch laboratories joined forces and shared their evaluation data to allow for the evaluation of a quantity of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 that exceeds the capacity of each individual laboratory. As of April 2020, these performance data had been aggregated and shared in regularly updated reports with other laboratories, Dutch government, public health organizations, and the public. This frequently updated overview of assay performance increased the efficiency of our national laboratory response, supporting laboratories in their choice and implementation of assays. Aggregated performance data for 47 immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 showed that none of the evaluated immunoassays that detect only IgM or IgA met the diagnostic criteria, indicating that they are not suitable for diagnosing acute infections. For the detection of IgG, only the Biozek Corona virus COVID rapid test, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG, and Wantai SARS-CoV-2 antibody (Ab) ELISA met predefined performance criteria in hospitalized patients where samples were collected 14 days post-onset of symptoms (DPO), while for patients with mild or asymptomatic infections, only the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA met the predefined performance criteria if samples were collected 14 days postonset. Here, we describe this unique nationwide collaboration during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the collected data and their results are an example of what can be accomplished when forces are joined during a public health crisis.
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.