ArticleGerms2021
Prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a group of patients, a control group, and healthcare workers of Thrace area in Greece, by the use of two distinct methods.
Article in Germs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of different automated immunoassays available in Europe to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; an ELISA assay and a CLIA. The second goal was to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in Evros area during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19.
methodsThe study included serum samples from 101 patients with confirmed COVID-19 by RT-PCR and 208 negative patients. Furthermore, it included 1036 healthcare workers (HWs) of the Evros Region, Northern Greece. The measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was performed using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG assay (Epitope Diagnostics, USA).
resultsOf 101 confirmed COVID-19 patients, 82 were hospitalized and 19 were outpatients. Hospitalized patients had higher IgG levels in comparison to outpatients (6.46±2.2 vs. 3.52±1.52, p<0.001). Of 208 non-COVID-19 patients only 1 was positive in both ELISA and CLIA assay. SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies were detected in 6 HWs out of 1036 (0.58%) with mean S/CO-value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG 3.12±1.3 (confidence interval 0.95), which was lower than in COVID-19 patients (3.12 vs. 5.9; p=0.016). The clinical evaluation of two immunoassays showed remarkably high true positivity rates in the confirmed COVID-19 patients. Sensitivities obtained with CLIA and ELISA methods were 99.02% vs. 97.09% and specificities 99.52% vs 99.05% respectively.
conclusionsWe found an acceptable accordance between CLIA and ELISA assays in the confirmed COVID-19 patients. In all subjects included in this study in the past medical history, the information that was obtained included details about the presence of autoimmune diseases.
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.