ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid assay performance in healthcare workers at baseline and 6 months.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in children seeking medical care in Seattle, WA June 2020 to December 2022.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Japanese healthcare workers from 2020 to 2022 as assayed by two commercial kits.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sensitivity of three antibody assays to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in relation to timing since diagnosis.GHM open · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Health Care Workers: A Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Three Commercially Available Antibody Assays.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence and longitudinal antibody response following natural infection in pregnancy: A prospective cohort study.Women's health (London, England)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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSerological SARS-CoV-2 assays have an important role in guiding the pandemic response. This research aimed to compare the performance of 2 antinucleocapsid assays.
methodsSerum from 49 HCWs was analysed at baseline and 6 months using the Abbott diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay.
resultsAt baseline, 14/49 participants (29%) demonstrated antibody reactivity using the Abbott assay. At 6 months, 4/14 participants (29%) continued to demonstrate reactivity. A total of 14/49 (29%) participants had detectable antibodies at baseline using the Roche assay. In total, 13/14 (93%) of participants demonstrated antibody reactivity at 6 months. The Abbott assay showed a statistically significant difference in the signal-to-threshold values of baseline reactive samples when repeated at 6 months (p = 0.001). This was not seen with the Roche assay (p = 0.51).
conclusionIn this small study, the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay appears superior in performance to the Abbott diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay in accurately detecting participants with a history of confirmed COVID-19 disease at 6 months follow-up. This finding should be born in mind in the planning of future seroprevalence studies, especially when considering the use of anti-nucleocapsid assays.
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.