ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Evaluation of 2 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in an immunocompetent and immunocompromised inpatient population with COVID-19.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibody Response and T Cell-Immunity in Immunocompromised Patients up to Six Months Post COVID: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread introduction of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing was introduced without a full understanding of the assays performance or the antibody kinetics following infection with SARS-CoV-2.
methodsWe performed an evaluation of 2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays with a more detailed look into the effect of immune status on antibody sensitivity.
resultsBoth assays demonstrated 100% specificity. The overall sensitivity of the Roche was 92.1% at ≥14 days and 94.8% at ≥21 days, and the overall sensitivity of the Abbott was 94.4% at ≥14 days and 98.2% at ≥21 days. 7/41 (17%) of patients included in this cohort were immunocompromised. Seroconversion was seen less commonly in the immunocompromised (4/7 [57.1%] seroconverted) and after excluding these patients 100% sensitivity was seen in both assays at ≥21 days. DISCUSSION: Performance of both assays in the immunocompetent appeared excellent after 21 days postsymptom onset. Both assays are highly specific.
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.