ArticleRespiratory investigation2022
Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study in Japan.
Article in Respiratory investigation, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection and comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antibody produced in naturally infected patients and vaccinated individuals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: multicenter cross-sectional study.Virology journal · 2024Article
- Reduced antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients with newly diagnosed diabetes: a retrospective observational study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are many commercially available automated assays for assessing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immune responses; however, owing to insufficient data, their validities remain unknown. Here, we examined antibody responses during acute-phase COVID-19 using four assays that detect anti-spike protein IgM (S-IgM), anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG (N-IgG), anti-spike protein total Ig (S-total Ig), and anti-spike protein IgG (S-IgG).
methodsWe measured antibody levels in 1154 serum samples collected from 286 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 by a gene amplification method between February and December 2020 in Japan. Sera from 860 healthcare workers were used as negative controls.
resultsThe antibody positivity rates increased on week 2, peaked, and then started to plateau by the beginning of week 3 after symptom onset. On week 1, there were some significant differences in seropositivity rates between assays (p = 0.032): 14.9% (11.0%-19.4%) for S-IgM and 8.9% (6.0%-12.7%) for N-IgG. The seropositivity for the S-total Ig (10.6% [7.3%-14.6%]) assay was considerably better than that for the S-IgG (6.9% [4.3%-10.4%]) assay, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.150). The levels of S-IgM antibodies and the three others peaked on weeks 3 and 5, respectively. All four assays showed high specificities (>99%).
conclusionsAll four assays had good specificities and were suitable for seropositivity detection after week 3 of symptom onset. Assays of IgM alone or total Ig (containing IgM) were better than those of IgG alone as an adjunct serological test for early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis, albeit the use of a serological assay alone is insufficient.
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.