ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2022
Borderline and weakly positive antibody levels against the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibit limited agreement with virus neutralization titres.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Utility of Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S in ascertaining post-vaccine neutralizing antibodies.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- One-Year Follow-Up of COVID-19 Patients Indicates Substantial Assay-Dependent Differences in the Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Rapid Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralising Antibodies Using Time-Resolved Fluorescence Immunoassay.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody quantitative titer reporting using the World Health Organization International Standard Units by four commercial assays.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a large number of people is - besides cellular immunity - important to overcome the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While determination of neutralizing antibodies via virus neutralization tests are laborious, assays to determine the antibody levels serologically are fully automated and widely available. Correlations between these methodologies were recently given by the manufacturers, however performance in samples close to the cut off value have not yet been fully validated. Thus, we analysed 22 borderline and low positive (<100 BAU/ml) samples and 9 high positive (≥ 100 BAU/ml) from infected and/or vaccinated individuals and compared the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (Diasorin), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche), and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens) with results obtained from a virus neutralization test. Based on the cut off values given by Abbott, Diasorin, Roche, and Siemens, the positive serologic results were concordant with the virus neutralization test in 100%, 76%, 88%, and 71%, respectively, while in turn, negative ones were in agreement in 29%, 79%, 93%, and 86%, respectively. In conclusion, weakly positive, serologic results are challenging to correctly predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies. Our study suggests, that different cut off values (for positivity
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.