ReviewEJIFCC2022
Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.
Review in EJIFCC, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to their wide application in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we verified and compared three qualitative serological methods in order to select the most optimal that will best serve its purpose under laboratory conditions. Methods: We assessed the diagnostic characteristics of two automated serological methods (Roche Elecsys Results: Diagnostic characteristics were determined by measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 91 RT-PCR-negative and 60 RT-PCR-positive samples. The POCT test gave the highest number of false positive cases (8.61%). Roche Elecsys Conclusion: Both automated methods demonstrate superior diagnostic characteristics compared to the Colloidal Gold Method, and this POCT test is not considered as an appropriate choice for routine testing. The two automated methods showed low variability without altering the results and their interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36313905PMC9562488What 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.