Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36423048›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Determining the SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike Cutoff Level Denoting Neutralizing Activity Using Two Commercial Kits.

Engy Mohamed El-Ghitany, Mona H Hashish, Azza Galal Farghaly, Eman A Omran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Engy Mohamed El-GhitanyDepartment of Tropical Health, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt.
Mona H HashishDepartment of Microbiology, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt.
Azza Galal FarghalyDepartment of Tropical Health, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt.
Eman A OmranDepartment of Microbiology, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-3173-304X

Funding

Science and Technology Development Fund 43834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe viral neutralization assay is the gold standard to estimate the level of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. This study analyzes the correlation between the quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) and the NeutraLISA neutralization assay.

methods650 serum samples were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) using kits by EUROIMMUN, Germany.

resultsThere was a significant correlation between levels of anti-S and nAbs (Spearman's rho = 0.913). Among the positive samples for anti-S, 77.0% (n = 345) were positive for nAbs. There was a substantial agreement between anti-S and nAbs (Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.658; agreement of 83.38%). Considering NeutraLISA as a gold standard, anti-S had a sensitivity of 98.57%, specificity of 65.66%, NPV of 97.5%, and PPV of 77.0%. When the anti-S titer was greater than 18.1 RU/mL (57.9 BAU/mL), nAbs were positive, with a sensitivity of 90.0% and specificity of 91%.

conclusionsA titer of SARS-CoV-2 anti-S IgG can be correlated with levels of nAbs.

Indexed as

COVID-19cutoff pointneutralizing antibodiesreceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curvespike antibodies

Identifiers

PMID36423048
PMCPMC9699632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.