ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2021
Evaluation of the genalyte maverick SARS-CoV-2 multi-antigen serology panel.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demonstrating Clinical Performance of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Nucleocapsid Immunoassay Using Real-World Data to Support Regulatory Decision-Making in the USA.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Revolutionary Point-of-Care Wearable Diagnostics for Early Disease Detection and Biomarker Discovery through Intelligent Technologies.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- A Multiplex "Disposable Photonics" Biosensor Platform and Its Application to Antibody Profiling in Upper Respiratory Disease.ACS sensors · 2024Article
- Asymmetric Mach-Zehnder Interferometric Biosensing for Quantitative and Sensitive Multiplex Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Human Plasma.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Alternative Methods to Detect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibodies.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 can be used for evaluation of past infection in individual patients and for community seroprevalence studies. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the Genalyte Maverick SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen Serology Panel compared to the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NC) qualitative immunoassay, using well characterized clinical serum samples. A total of 143 pre-pandemic sera and 48 sera collected from patients with a negative molecular SARS-CoV-2 result were used for specificity studies. For sensitivity analyses, 179 sera were used, obtained 3-7 days, 8-14 days, or ≥ 15 days after symptom onset from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Specificity was determined to be 95.3% (182/191) for the Genalyte Maverick. Overall sensitivity of the Genalyte Maverick was similar to that observed for the Roche Elecsys NC test, 79.3% (142/179) vs. 76.5% (137/179), respectively. Genalyte Maverick trended, without statistical significance, towards higher sensitivity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC test in the 3-7 days (11/25 vs. 9/25, respectively) and 8-14 days (21/28 vs. 19/28, respectively) post-symptom onset sample sets, but was identical in the ≥ 15 days post-symptom onset group (106/116 vs. 106/116, respectively). Therefore, the Genalyte Maverick serologic test had similar overall sensitivity to the Roche Elecsys NC assay, but may have slightly improved sensitivity for early seroconversion. The lower Genalyte Maverick specificity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC assay as reported by other studies (>99%), may necessitate confirmatory testing of positive Genalyte Maverick results if implemented for clinical use.
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.