ArticleRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia2022
[Evaluation of two immunocromatographic tests for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2].
Article in Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of biochemical and hematological profiles in outpatients with serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence for broad cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NSP12-directed CD4Frontiers in immunology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSerological tests have been a valuable tool during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, supporting molecular methods for detection, and monitoring the immune response, caused by vaccination or by natural infection. Within all these techniques, rapid tests are interesting due to their ease of use, rapid response and low cost.
methodsTwo different immunological techniques were evaluated: Realy Tech and Mikrogen Diagnostik recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG. SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant antibody test and SARS-CoV-IgG assay, both from Abbott Diagnostics, were used as reference techniques.
resultsMikrogen Diagnostik recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG shows the best results (S=0.985; E=0.839). Three techniques offered good positive predictive values, but Realy Tech and Healgen negative predictive values left to be desired.
conclusionsMikrogen Diagnostik recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG showed good results in the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and could be used as an alternative to automated techniques.
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.