ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Comparison of the Performance of 24 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Assays in the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrochemical biosensors: a novel approach for rapid and cost-effective hCG monitoring in gestational trophoblastic tumours.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and economy of nemonoxacin injection versus moxifloxacin injection in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- RDE Treatment Prevents Non-Specific Detection of SARS-CoV-2- and Influenza-Specific IgG Antibodies in Heat-Inactivated Serum Samples.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the key to control Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). The performance of different antibody detection methods for diagnosis of COVID-19 is inconclusive. Methods: Between 16 February and 28 February 2020, 384 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 142 healthy controls were recruited. 24 different serological tests, including 4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (EIAs), 10 chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs), and 10 lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), were simultaneously performed. Results: The sensitivities of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies with different reagents ranged from 75 to 95.83% and 46.09 to 92.45%, respectively. The specificities of both anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM were relatively high and comparable among different reagents, ranged from 88.03 to 100%. The area under the curves (AUCs) of different tests ranged from 0.733 to 0.984, and the AUCs of EIAs or CLIAs were significantly higher than those of LFIAs. The sensitivities of both IgG and IgM gradually increased with increase of onset time. After 3-4 weeks, the sensitivities of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG were maintained at a certain level but the sensitivities of IgM were gradually decreased. Six COVID-19 patients who displayed negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 results were associated with the factors such as older age, having underlying diseases, and using immunosuppressant. Conclusion: Besides the purpose of assessing the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the population, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays may have an adjunct role in the diagnosis and exclusion of COVID-19, especially by using high-throughput technologies (EIAs or CLIAs).
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.