ArticleViruses2022
Side-By-Side Evaluation of Three Commercial ELISAs for the Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies.
Article in Viruses, 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
In December 2020, WHO presented the first international standard (WHO IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. This standard is intended to serve as a reference reagent against which serological tests can be calibrated, thus creating better comparability of results between different tests, laboratories, etc. Here, we have examined three different commercial ELISA kits for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, namely the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany), the SERION ELISA agile (Institut Virion Serion, Würzburg, Germany), and the COVID-19 quantitative IgG ELISA (DeMediTec Diagnostics, Kiel, Germany). According to the manufacturers, all are calibrated against the WHO IS and can provide results in either international units (IU) (DeMediTec) or arbitrary antibody units (BAU) per milliliter (Euroimmun, Virion Serion), which are numerically identical, according to the WHO. A total of 50 serum samples from vaccinated individuals were tested side by side and according to the manufacturer's instructions. We compared the test results of all three assays with each other to assess comparability and with a quantitative in-house virus neutralization test (micro-NT). In summary, our data are consistent with other studies published on this topic that tested similar assays from different manufacturers. Overall, the agreement between quantitative ELISAs is variable and cannot be used interchangeably despite calibration against a standard. Therefore, interpretation of results must still be individualized and tailored to each case. More importantly, our results highlight that quantitative ELISAs in their current form cannot replace neutralization tests.
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.