Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35215912›Full record

ArticleViruses2022

Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals.

Lennart Münsterkötter, Moritz Maximilian Hollstein, Andreas Hahn, Andrea Kröger, Moritz Schnelle, Luise Erpenbeck, Uwe Groß, Hagen Frickmann, Andreas Erich Zautner

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lennart MünsterkötterInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4893-8503
Moritz Maximilian HollsteinDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Andreas HahnInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-8369
Andrea KrögerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Moritz SchnelleInstitute for Clinical Chemistry, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5134-8347
Luise ErpenbeckDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Uwe GroßInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9874-1007
Hagen FrickmannInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8967-9528
Andreas Erich ZautnerInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0984-013X
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEBundeswehrkrankenhaus · DEHelmholtz Centre for Infection Research · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ZA 697/6-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.

Indexed as

Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19HumansLongitudinal StudiesNeutralization TestsReference StandardsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityVaccinationAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19neutralizationSARS-CoV-2serologytest comparisonvaccination

Identifiers

PMID35215912
PMCPMC8877287
OpenAlexW4210329062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.