Trial reportPloS one2021
Performance verification of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 test for qualitative detection of IgG in Cali, Colombia.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- Article
- Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Building Research Capacity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- A Mixture Model for Estimating SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Chennai, India.American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdequate testing is critically important for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Antibody testing is an option for case management and epidemiologic studies, with high specificity and variable sensitivity. However, characteristics of local populations may affect performance of these tests. For this reason, the National Institute of Health (INS) and regulatory agencies in Colombia require verification of diagnostic accuracy of tests introduced to the Colombian market.
methodsWe conducted a validation study of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 test for qualitative detection of IgG using the Abbott Architect i2000SR. Participants and retrospective samples were included from patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, age ≥18 years, and ≥8 days elapsed since initiation of symptoms. Pre-pandemic plasma samples (taken before October 2019) were used as controls. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity and agreement (kappa) of the Abbott IgG test compared to the gold standard (RT-PCR).
resultsThe overall sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI: 75.4-100). Sensitivity among patients with ≥14 days since the start of symptoms was 85.7%, reaching 88% in samples collected from patients with COVID-19 symptoms onset >60 days. Specificity was 100% and the kappa index of agreement was 0.804 (95% CI: 0.642-0.965).
conclusionsOur findings show high sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott IgG test in a Colombian population, which meet the criteria set by the Colombian INS to aid in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Data from our patient groups also suggest that IgG response is detectable in a high proportion of individuals (88.1%) during the first two months following onset of symptoms.
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.