ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Development of Serological Assays and Seroprevalence Studies of the New Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Reports from Saudi Arabia.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Comparative evaluation of four immunoassays for Plasmodium vivax serological detection using recombinant PvMSP1-42 antigen.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Lack of Evidence on Association between Iron Deficiency and COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Neutralizing Humoral Immunity.Vaccines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Serological assays are valuable tools for tracking COVID-19 spread, estimation of herd immunity, and evaluation of vaccine effectiveness. Several reports from Saudi Arabia describe optimized in-house protocols that enable detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies and measurement of their neutralizing activity. Notably, there were variations in the approaches utilized to develop and validate these immunoassays in term of sample size, validation methodologies, and statistical analyses. The developed enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISAs) were based on the viral full-length spike (S), S1 subunit, and nucleocapsid (NP), and enabled detection of IgM and/or IgG. ELISAs were evaluated and validated against a microneutralization assay utilizing a local SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate, FDA-approved commercially available immunoassays, and/or real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Overall, the performance of the described assays was high, reaching up to 100% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity with no cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses. In-house immunoassays, along with commercially available kits, were subsequently applied in a number of sero-epidemiological studies aiming to estimate sero-positivity status among local populations including healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients, non-COVID-19 patients, and healthy blood donors. The reported seroprevalence rates differed widely among these studies, ranging from 0.00% to 32.2%. These variations are probably due to study period, targeted population, sample size, and performance of the immunoassays utilized. Indeed, lack of sero-positive cases were reported among healthy blood donors during the lockdown, while the highest rates were reported when the number of COVID-19 cases peaked in the country, particularly among healthcare workers working in referral hospitals and quarantine sites. In this review, we aim to (1) provide a critical discussion about the developed in-house immunoassays, and (2) summarize key findings of the sero-epidemiological studies and highlight strengths and weaknesses of each study.
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.