Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34874948›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Dried blood spot specimens for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: A multi-site, multi-assay comparison.

François Cholette, Christine Mesa, Angela Harris, Hannah Ellis, Karla Cachero, Philip Lacap, Yannick Galipeau, Marc-André Langlois, Anne-Claude Gingras, Cedric P Yansouni and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Canada's approach to SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveillance: Lessons learned for routine surveillance and future pandemics.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cohort profile:BMJ open · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

François CholetteNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Christine MesaNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Angela HarrisNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Hannah EllisNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Karla CacheroNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Philip LacapNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Yannick GalipeauDepartment of Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Marc-André LangloisDepartment of Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4652-3029
Anne-Claude GingrasDepartment of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Cedric P YansouniMcGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Jesse PapenburgMcGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4232-871X
Matthew P ChengMcGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4867-2063
Pranesh ChakrabortyNewborn Screening Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Derek R SteinDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Paul Van CaeseeleDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Sofia BartlettBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, Canada.
Mel KrajdenBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, Canada.
David GoldfarbDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Allison McGeerCOVID-19 Immunity Task Force, Montréal, Canada.
Carla OsiowyNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Catherine HankinsCOVID-19 Immunity Task Force, Montréal, Canada.
Bruce MazerDepartment of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Michael DrebotNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
John KimNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
COVID-19 Immunity Task Force (CITF) working group
Public Health Agency of Canada · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAManitoba Health · CAMcGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CAInstitute of Infection and Immunity · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The true severity of infection due to COVID-19 is under-represented because it is based on only those who are tested. Although nucleic acid amplifications tests (NAAT) are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, serological assays provide better population-level SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. Implementing large sero-surveys present several logistical challenges within Canada due its unique geography including rural and remote communities. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a practical solution but comparative performance data on SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using DBS is currently lacking. Here we present test performance data from a well-characterized SARS-CoV-2 DBS panel sent to laboratories across Canada representing 10 commercial and 2 in-house developed tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Three commercial assays identified all positive and negative DBS correctly corresponding to a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI = 72.2, 100). Two in-house assays also performed equally well. In contrast, several commercial assays could not achieve a sensitivity greater than 40% or a negative predictive value greater than 60%. Our findings represent the foundation for future validation studies on DBS specimens that will play a central role in strengthening Canada's public health policy in response to COVID-19.

Indexed as

Dried Blood Spot TestingAntibodies, ViralArea Under CurveCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansReagent Kits, DiagnosticROC CurveSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID34874948
PMCPMC8651133
OpenAlexW4226286100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.