Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35377034›Full record

ArticleArchives of virology2022

Validation of a quantitative lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA)-based point-of-care (POC) rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

Massimo Pieri, Eleonora Nicolai, Marzia Nuccetelli, Serena Sarubbi, Flaminia Tomassetti, Martina Pelagalli, Marilena Minieri, Alessandro Terrinoni, Sergio Bernardini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Recent progress on rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 by point-of-care testing platforms.Chinese chemical letters = Zhongguo hua xue kuai bao · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Massimo PieriDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy. massimo.pieri@uniroma2.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3463-0268
Eleonora NicolaiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Marzia NuccetelliDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, "Tor Vergata" University Hospital, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Serena SarubbiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Flaminia TomassettiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Martina PelagalliDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Marilena MinieriDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro TerrinoniDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Sergio BernardiniDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the widespread use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, a rapid and reliable method to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) is extremely important for monitoring vaccine effectiveness and immunity in the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the RapiRead™ reader and the TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb rapid point-of-care (POC) test for quantitative measurement of antibodies against the spike protein receptor-binding domain of severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different biological matrices compared to chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) methods. Ninety-four samples were collected and analyzed using a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb kits for detecting neutralizing antibodies, and then using two CLIAs. The data were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two groups or the Mann-Whitney test for two groups. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Good correlation was observed between the rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test system and both CLIA methods. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Maglumi: correlation coefficient (r) = 0.728 for all patients; r = 0.841 for vaccinated patients. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Mindray: r = 0.6394 in all patients; r = 0.8724 in vaccinated patients. The time stability of the POC serological test was also assessed considering two times of reading, 12 and 14 minutes. The data revealed no significant differences. The use of a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb assay is a quantitative, rapid, and valid method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and could be a useful tool for screening studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and assessing the efficacy of vaccines in a non-laboratory context.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunoassayPoint-of-Care SystemsSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35377034
PMCPMC8977564
OpenAlexW4224491627

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.