Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35439957›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19.

Debasree Kundu, Priyanka Gautam, Divya Dayanand, Karthik Gunasekaran, Abi Manesh, Merylin Sebastian, Kundavaram P P Abhilash, Anand Zachariah, Tina George, Sowmya Sathyendra and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Performance assessment of a new serological diagnostic test for COVID-19 with candidate peptides from spike and nucleocapsid viral proteins.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Debasree KunduDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Priyanka GautamDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Divya DayanandDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Karthik GunasekaranDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abi ManeshDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Merylin SebastianDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kundavaram P P AbhilashDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Anand ZachariahDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Tina GeorgeDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sowmya SathyendraDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Samuel G HansdakDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
O C AbrahamDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ramya IyaduraiDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Balamugesh ThangakunamDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Richa GuptaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rajiv KarthikDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India.
Mahesh MoorthyDepartment of Clinical Virology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. maheshmoorthy@cmcvellore.ac.in.
George M VargheseDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College, Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India. georgemvarghese@hotmail.com.
Christian Medical College · INChristian Medical College & Hospital · IN

Funding

The Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance IA/CPHS/16/1/502679
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role and performance of various serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of seven commercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by testing COVID-19 cases and controls.

methodsAdult patients with fever for > 5 days, admitted to a tertiary-care teaching hospital in South India, were enrolled prospectively between June and December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed patients were classified as cases, and patients with febrile illness with laboratory-confirmed alternative diagnosis and healthy participants were controls. All participants were tested with SCoV-2 Detect™ IgM ELISA kit and SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA kit (InBios International, Seattle, USA) (Inbios), SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Tarrytown, USA) (Siemens), Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (Roche), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA) (Abbott), and Liaison® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorinS.p.A., Saluggia, Italy) (Liaison). The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracies were compared.

resultsThere were 303 participants: 153 cases and 150 controls. ELISA detecting anti-S protein antibody was more sensitive (88.9% for IgG and 86.3% for IgM) than the CLIAs (82.4% for total antibodies and 76.5-85.6% for IgG). Among CLIAs, Roche IgG was most sensitive (85.6%) followed by Abbott (83%) and Liaison (83%). Abbot had the best PPV (88.8%) and was more specific (89.3%) than Liaison (82%) and Roche (82%). Siemens IgG was less sensitive (76.5%) than Siemens Total (82.4%). The specificity of all the serological assays was modest (75-90%). Antibody test positivity increased with the duration of illness reaching 90% after 10 days of illness. When cases were compared against pre-pandemic controls, the IgG gave excellent specificity (98-100%). For seroprevalence studies, InBios IgG had the best accuracy (90.8%) with 88.9% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity.

conclusionThe serological assays are important adjuncts for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with persistent symptoms, especially in the second week of illness. The value of serological diagnostic tests is limited in the first week of illness and they provide additional value in seroprevalence studies. The diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA and CLIA platforms were comparable.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAntibodies, ViralHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySeroepidemiologic StudiesAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MAntibody testCOVID-19IgGIgMSARS-CoV-2Serology

Identifiers

PMID35439957
PMCPMC9017961
OpenAlexW4226086366

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.