ArticleClinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry2022
Two rapid SARS-CoV-2 disposable devices for semi-quantitative S-RBD antibody levels determination compared with CLIA and ELISA assays at different protective thresholds.
Article in Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of serum and urine biomarkers for severe COVID-19.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPerformance of two disposable devices for identifying subjects with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 protection was compared with that of automated enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) and chemiluminescent (CLIA) assay. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn July 2021, 123 healthcare workers (HCW), twice vaccinated by BNT162b2/Comirnaty mRNA (BioNTech-Pfizer), underwent Ab iRapid COVID-19 Quant "Neutralizing" Self-test (iRapid Self-test) and "Neutralizing" Professional-use (iRapid pro) (DIESSE, Diagnostica Senese, Siena, Italy). Simultaneously, serum Ab were determined by Maglumi 2000 plus (anti S-RBD CLIA assay, Snibe Diagnostics, Shenzhen, China) and SARS-CoV-2 "Neutralizing" Ab Chorus ELISA (DIESSE, Siena, Italy). Results were evaluated against two "protective-thresholds", 90 kBAU/L and 506 kBAU/L.
resultsHCW mean age, 46.2 (±12.6) years; 26 (20.5%), males, 101 (79.5%), females. The mean time interval (and standard deviation) between the first vaccine dose and Ab determination was 129.5 (±36.4) days and was neither gender (p = 0.879) nor age (p = 0.341) related. With Maglumi, 114 (89.7%) and 43 (33.8%) HCW presented Ab ≥ 90 kBAU/L and Ab ≥ 506 kBAU/L, respectively; with Chorus, 96 (75.6%) presented Ab values ≥506 kBAU/L. CLIA and ELISA agreement was 56.7%. At 90 kBAU/L, iRapid self-test and Pro sensitivities were 98.2% (95% CI: 92.7-99.8), specificity 69.2% (95% CI: 38.6-90.9%) and 76.9% (46.2-95%), respectively. At 506 kBAU/L, iRapid sensitivities were 58.1-91.6%, and specificities, 89-96.6%. On evaluating Ab at <4 and ≥4 months, protective titers had decreased.
conclusionsiRapid semi-quantitative devices had very good overall agreements of 95.1% and 95.9% for detecting individuals with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 protection.
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.