ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
A method comparison of three immunoassays for detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain in individuals with adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccination.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A method comparison of three immunoassays for detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain in individuals with adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccination.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDetecting neutralizing antibodies targeting receptor-binding domain (RBD) is important for the assessment of humoral protection and vaccine efficacy after vaccination. We compared the performance of three surrogate immunoassays for detection of neutralizing antibodies targeting RBD.
methodsWe analyzed 115 serum samples obtained from individuals with Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccination using two competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Wantai BioPharm and Synthgene Medical Technology) and one competitive chemiluminescence assay (YHLO Biotech). Performance evaluation and methodology comparison were performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute related guidelines.
resultsThe precision met the manufacturers' statements. The linear range of the WANTAI was 0.0625-0.545 U/ml and the YHLO was 0.260-242.4 U/ml. The WANTAI's limit of blank (LoB) and limit of detection (LoD) were 0.03 and 0.06 U/ml, respectively. The YHLO's LoB and LoD were 0.048 and 0.211 U/ml, respectively. The correlations of semi-quantitative results of Synthgene with quantitative results of YHLO (ρ = 0.566) and WANTAI (ρ = 0.512) were medium. For YHLO and WANTAI, there was a good agreement (0.62) and a strong correlation (ρ = 0.931). Passing-Bablok analysis and Bland-Altman plot showed a positive bias (112.3%) of the YHLO compared to the WANTAI. The exclusion of samples >50 U/ml did not decrease bias.
conclusionThese findings contribute to a deeper understanding of surrogate viral neutralization assays and provide useful data for future comparison studies.
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.