ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Characterization of the Diagnostic Performance of a Novel COVID-19 PETIA in Comparison to Four Routine N-, S- and RBD-Antigen Based Immunoassays.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibody response: the comparability of S1-specific binding assays depends on epitope and isotype discrimination.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody progression and neutralizing potential in mild symptomatic COVID-19 patients - a comparative long term post-infection study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2019, a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan in the province of Hubei, China. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread across the globe, causing the neoteric COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is commonly transmitted by droplet infection and aerosols when coughing or sneezing, as well as high-risk exposures to infected individuals by face-to-face contact without protective gear. To date, a broad variety of techniques have emerged to assess and quantify the specific antibody response of a patient towards a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we report the first comprehensive comparison of five different assay systems: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA), Electro-Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA), and a new Particle-Enhanced Turbidimetric Immunoassay (PETIA) for SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we also evaluated the suitability of N-, S1- and RBD-antigens for quantifying the SARS-CoV-2 specific immune response. Linearity and precision, overall sensitivity and specificity of the assays, stability of samples, and cross-reactivity of general viral responses, as well as common coronaviruses, were assessed. Moreover, the reactivity of all tests to seroconversion and different sample matrices was quantified. All five assays showed good overall agreement, with 76% and 87% similarity for negative and positive samples, respectively. In conclusion, all evaluated methods showed a high consistency of results and suitability for the robust quantification of the SARS-CoV-2-derived immune response.
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.