Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652636›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022

A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021.

Kento T Abe, Bhavisha Rathod, Karen Colwill, Anne-Claude Gingras, Ashleigh Tuite, Ninette F Robbins, Guillermo Orjuela, Craig Jenkins, Valerie Conrod, Qi-Long Yi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Kento T AbeLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bhavisha RathodLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karen ColwillDepartment of Molecular Genetics, University of Torontogrid.17063.33, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anne-Claude GingrasLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ashleigh TuiteDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Torontogrid.17063.33, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ninette F RobbinsScientific Affairs, Abbott Transfusion Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Guillermo OrjuelaScientific Affairs, Abbott Transfusion Medicine, Bogotá, Colombia.
Craig JenkinsCOVID-19 Serological Screening Laboratory, Canadian Blood Servicesgrid.423370.1, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Valerie ConrodCOVID-19 Serological Screening Laboratory, Canadian Blood Servicesgrid.423370.1, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Qi-Long YiEpidemiology and Surveillance, Canadian Blood Servicesgrid.423370.1, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sheila F O'BrienEpidemiology and Surveillance, Canadian Blood Servicesgrid.423370.1, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5332-2789
Steven J DrewsCanadian Blood Servicesgrid.423370.1, Microbiology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2519-1109
University of Toronto · CACanadian Blood Services · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAAbbott (United States) · USLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

CIHR VR1-172711CIHR VR2-172723
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our group has previously used laboratory and commercially developed assays to understand the IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD), in Canadian blood donors. In this current study, we analyzed 17,428 available and previously characterized retention samples collected from April 2020 to March 2021. The analysis compared the characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott anti-spike [S], Abbott, Chicago, IL) against four other IgG assays. The Abbott anti-S assay has a qualitative threshold of 50 AU/mL. The four comparator assays were the Abbott anti-nucleocapsid (N) assay and three commonly used Canadian in-house IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) recognizing distinct recombinant viral antigens, full-length spike glycoprotein, glycoprotein RBD, and nucleocapsid. The strongest qualitative relationship was between Sinai RBD and the Abbott anti-S assay (kappa, 0.707; standard error [SE] of kappa, 0.018; 95% confidence interval, 0.671 to 0.743). We then scored each previously characterized specimen as positive when two anti-SARS-COV-2 assays identified anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the specimen. Using this composite reference standard approach, the sensitivity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 95.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.27 to 97.63%). The specificity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 99.35% (95% CI, 99.21 to 99.46%). Our study provides context on the use of commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serologies in Canada and identifies how these assays qualitatively compare to newer commercial assays. Our next steps are to assess how well the Abbott anti-S assays quantitatively detect wild-type and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralBlood DonorsCanadaEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin GSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GIgGmethods comparisonsnucleocapsidreceptor binding domainSARS-CoV-2 antibodyspike

Identifiers

PMID35652636
PMCPMC9241784
OpenAlexW4281943232

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.