ArticlemSphere2022
Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.
Article in mSphere, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test.
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.