Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34260272›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative Antibody Assay Including the New Variants of Concern, VOC 202012/V1 (United Kingdom) and VOC 202012/V2 (South Africa), and First Steps towards Global Harmonization of COVID-19 Antibody Methods.

Emma English, Laura E Cook, Isabelle Piec, Samir Dervisevic, William D Fraser, W Garry John

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emma EnglishFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Laura E CookDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Isabelle PiecFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Samir DervisevicFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
William D FraserFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
W Garry JohnFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
University of East Anglia · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GB

Funding

Abbott | Abbott Diagnostics N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the initial stages of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of new serology tests were developed and introduced to the global market. Many were not evaluated rigorously, and there is a significant lack of concordance in results across methods. To enable meaningful clinical decisions to be made, robustly evaluated, quantitative serology methods are needed. These should be harmonized to a primary reference material, allowing for the comparison of trial data and improved clinical decision making. A comprehensive evaluation of the new Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG method was undertaken using CLSI-based protocols. Two different candidate primary reference materials and verification panels were assessed with a goal to move toward harmonization. The Abbott IgG II method performed well across a wide range of parameters with excellent imprecision (<3.5%) and was linear throughout the positive range (tested to 38,365 AU/ml). The sensitivity (based on ≥14-day post-positive reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR] samples) and specificity were 98.3% (90.6% to 100.0%) and 99.5% (97.1% to 100%), respectively. The candidate reference materials showed poor correlation across methods, with mixed responses noted in methods that use the spike protein versus the nucleocapsid proteins as their binding antigen. The Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 measurement appears to be the first linear method potentially capable of monitoring the immune response to natural infection, including from new emerging variants. The candidate reference materials assessed did not generate uniform results across several methods, and further steps are needed to enable the harmonization process.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antibodies, ViralHumansImmunoglobulin GPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySouth AfricaAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin Ganalytical performanceantibody assayCOVID-19evaluationharmonizationSARS-CoV-2serologyvariants

Identifiers

PMID34260272
PMCPMC8373017
OpenAlexW3178764950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.