Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35667939›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy2022

Performance analysis among multiple fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement reagents: A potential indicator for the correlation of protection in the antibody titer.

Ryo Kobayashi, Ema Suzuki, Ryosei Murai, Makito Tanaka, Yoshihiro Fujiya, Satoshi Takahashi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ryo KobayashiDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Ema SuzukiDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Ryosei MuraiDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Makito TanakaDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Yoshihiro FujiyaDepartment of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Satoshi TakahashiDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan; Division of Infection Control, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan; Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, South-1 West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan. Electronic address: stakahas@sapmed.ac.jp.
Sapporo Medical University · JPSapporo Medical University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the performance of various reagents in automated analyzers for antibody detection against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

methodsUsing 100 serum samples from 100 individual patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the precision, linearity, determination agreement, and correlation of five qualitative reagents (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgM, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM, and SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and four quantitative reagents (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG II, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG 1st IS, and SARS-COV-2 IgG S) were analyzed. A surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT) kit was used to evaluate the measurement value of each quantitative reagent corresponding to the amount of neutralizing antibody, similar to that of patients in the late stage of infection.

resultsPrecision and linearity were found to be sufficient for clinical use. Five discrepant samples were observed in the positive and negative judgments of the qualitative reagents for IgG, and one discrepant sample was observed in the qualitative reagent for IgM. Although the measurement values of the quantitative reagents were different, they were correlated with each reagent. The reference values inferred from the sVNT were Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2: 71.8 U/L, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgGⅡ: 2976.3 AU/mL, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG 1st IS: 689.6 IU/mL, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG S: 19.3 U/L.

conclusionsThe performance observed for each anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection reagent was sufficient. The reference values based on the inhibition rate of sVNT have potential as indicators of the correlation of protection and are expected to be leveraged in automated antibody tests.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MIndicators and ReagentsSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MIndicators and ReagentsAntibodyAnti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodyCOVID-19Detection

Identifiers

PMID35667939
PMCPMC9149151
OpenAlexW4281959341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.