ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Evaluation of different platforms for the detection of anti-SARS coronavirus-2 antibodies, Thailand.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Thai adults during the first three epidemic waves.PloS one · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) help determine previous infection in individuals, regardless of whether they are asymptomatic or symptomatic. The detection of antibodies serves several purposes, including supporting other assays for disease diagnosis, conducting seroepidemiological studies, and evaluating vaccines. Many platforms of immunological methods for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection and their performance require validation.
methodsThis study evaluated the test performance of three autoanalyzer-based assays (Architect IgG, Vitros IgG, and Vitros total Ig) and one manual ELISA (Wantai total Ig) against a microneutralization (microNT) assay on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Furthermore, an indirect immunofluorescence assay verified the discordant results between the microNT and commercial assays. The test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were determined based on four groups of 1005 serum samples: 102 COVID-19 prepandemic sera, 45 anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive sera, 366 sera of people at risk, and 492 sera of citizens returning from countries with a high prevalence of infection.
resultsThe analyses as a whole showed that the performance of these commercial assays was comparable. Each group was also analysed separately to gain further insight into test performance. The Architect did not detect two positive sera of people at risk (prevalence of infection 0.55%). The other methods correctly identified these two positive sera but yielded varying false-positive results. The group of returning travellers with an infection rate of 28.3% (139 of 492) better differentiated the test performance of individual assays.
conclusionsHigh-throughput Architect and Vitros autoanalyzers appear appropriate for working on large sample sizes in countries that can afford the cost. The Wantai ELISA, while requiring more individual time and technical skill, may provide reliable results at a lower cost. The selection of assays will depend on the laboratory facilities and feasibility.
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.