ArticleViruses2022
The Performances of Three Commercially Available Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies at Different Time Points Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Efficacy of 11 SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays for COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Regional Capitals of Cameroon, October-December 2020.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of three commercially available antibody assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies at different time points following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sera from 536 cases, including 207 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with the Wantai receptor binding domain (RBD) total antibody assay, Liaison S1/S2 IgG assay and Alinity i nucleocapsid IgG assay and compared to a two-step reference ELISA (SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG and SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen's kappa were calculated for the commercial assays. The assay's sensitivities varied greatly, from 68.7% to 95.3%, but the specificities remained high (96.9-99.1%). The three tests showed good performances in sera sampled 31 to 60 days after PCR positivity compared to the reference ELISA. The total antibody test performed better than the IgG tests the first 30 days and the nucleocapsid IgG test showed reduced sensitivity two months or more after PCR positivity. Hence, the test performances at different time points should be taken into consideration in clinical practice and epidemiological studies. Spike or RBD IgG tests are preferable in sera sampled more than two months following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.