ArticleAustralian and New Zealand journal of public health2021
The utility of SARS-CoV-2-specific serology in COVID-19 diagnosis.
Article in Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn May 2020, The Communicable Diseases Network of Australia (CDNA) case definition introduced serological criteria to support the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We present findings that support the utility of SARS-CoV-2-specific serology for public health investigations.
methodsFrom 24 January to 31 July 2020, the following information was collected from individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific immunofluorescence antibody tests: history of contact with COVID-19 cases; recent travel; symptoms consistent with COVID-19; and SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT) results. Individuals were classified as confirmed or probable by CDNA criteria or additionally as possible (SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG positive with compatible symptoms or epidemiologic risk) or indeterminate (SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA/IgM positive only) cases.
resultsA total of 10,595 individuals were tested in the six-month period. Of these, 9.8% (1,037) individuals had positive SARS-CoV-2-specific serology of which 566 (53.6%) were NAT-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 286 (27.6%) were part of a cruise ship outbreak sero-survey. The remaining 185 individuals (NAT negative) were individually classified as serologically confirmed (4, 0.4%), probable (72, 6.9%) possible (66, 6.4%) and indeterminate (38, 3.7%) cases. Maternal antibody transfer was inferred in one infant and four were unclassified.
conclusionSARS-CoV-2-specific serology is a key diagnostic tool for retrospective identification of COVID-19 infection. Implications for public health: SARS-CoV-2 specific serology can enhance the ability to find cases, link missing cases in clusters of infection and identify the epidemiological extent of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. A combination of epidemiological criteria, clinical criteria and a quantitative serological test can be used as an adjunct to classify SARS-CoV-2 cases. Our study confirms the low level of community transmission in NSW during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.