ArticleLaboratory medicine2022
Efficacy of POC Antibody Assays after COVID-19 Infection and Potential Utility for "Immunity Passports".
Article in Laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNumerous manufacturers market lateral flow assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but there are many questions about the reliability and efficacy of these tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsSerum specimens from 60 individuals were analyzed using 2 lateral flow antibody assays, an in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay.
resultsThe BioMedomics and Premier Biotech lateral flow assays were positive for IgM in 73.3% and 70% and for IgG in 80% and 73.3% of specimens, respectively. The ELISA assay was positive for IgM and IgG in 73.3% and 86.7% of specimens from infected individuals, whereas the Abbott assay was positive in 80%. The specificities of the 4 assays ranged from 96.7% to 100% for IgM and from 93.3% to 100% for IgG.
conclusionResults of the 2 lateral flow assays were comparable to those of the ELISA and Abbott assays. Assay efficacy depended on length of time after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.