ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Comparative Study of Nine SARS-CoV-2 IgG Lateral Flow Assays Using Both Post-Infection and Post-Vaccination Samples.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of NADAL COVID IgG/IgM rapid test and DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay across different blood sources and substrates.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.AIMS microbiology · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the performance of a lateral flow device for quantitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.Clinical immunology communications · 2022Article
- Nanotechnology meets immunology towards a rapid diagnosis solution: the COVID-19 outbreak challenge.RSC advances · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFA) detecting specific antibodies have entered the market in abundance. Despite being CE-IVD-labeled, the antigenic compounds of the assays are often unknown, the performance characteristics provided by the manufacturer are often incomplete, and the samples used to obtain the data are not detailed.
objectiveTo perform a comparative evaluation of nine lateral flow assays to detect IgG responses against SARS-CoV-2. For the evaluation, a carefully designed serum panel containing post-infection samples and post-vaccination (both mRNA vaccine and inactivated virus vaccine) samples was used.
resultsThe sensitivity of the assays overall ranged from 9 to 90.3% and the specificity ranged from 94.2 to 100%. Spike protein-containing assays performed generally better than the assays with only nucleocapsid protein. The sensitivity of some assays was higher on post-infection samples, while other assays had a higher sensitivity to post-vaccination samples.
conclusionA comparative approach in the verification of LFAs with an adequately designed serum panel enabled the identification of the antigens used in the assays. Sensitivities differed between post-infection and post-vaccination samples, depending on the assays used. This demonstrates that the verification of assays must be performed with samples representative of the intended use of the assay.
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.