ArticlePloS one2022
Assessing the performance of a serological point-of-care test in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Assay Harmonization Study To Measure Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines: a Serology Methods Study.Microbiology spectrum · 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the performance of a rapid point-of-care antibody test, the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test, in comparison with a high-quality, validated, laboratory-based platform, the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Serological testing was conducted on 709 individuals. Concordance metrics were estimated. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with seropositivity. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 63.5% (450/709; 95% CI 59.8%-67.0%) using the BioMedomics assay and 71.9% (510/709; 95% CI 68.5%-75.2%) using the Elecsys assay. There were 60 discordant results between the two assays, all of which were seropositive in the Elecsys assay, but seronegative in the BioMedomics assay. Overall, positive, and negative percent agreements between the two assays were 91.5% (95% CI 89.2%-93.5%), 88.2% (95% CI 85.1%-90.9%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, with a Cohen's kappa of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84). Excluding specimens with lower (Elecsys) antibody titers, the agreement improved with overall, positive, and negative percent concordance of 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.1%), 91.8% (95% CI 88.8%-94.3%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, and a Cohen's kappa of 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90). Logistic regression confirmed better agreement with higher antibody titers. The BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test demonstrated good performance in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, supporting the utility of such rapid point-of-care serological testing to guide the public health responses and vaccine prioritization.
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.