ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
An Evaluation of Serological Tests to Determine Postvaccinal Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 by mRNA Vaccines.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 0 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe duration of the protective efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Thus, an evaluation of the clinical performance of available tests is required.
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of LFIA immunoassay compared to ELIA and CLIA immunoassays available in Europe for the detection of IgG antibodies generated by mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
methodsTwo automated immunoassays (the EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S1 ELISA and the LIAISON de Diasorin anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S1/S2 test) and a lateral flow immunoassay (the Livzon LFIA anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S test) were tested. We analyzed 300 samples distributed in three groups: 100 subjects aged over 18 years and under 45 years, 100 subjects aged between 45 and 65 years, and 100 subjects aged over 65 years. The samples were collected before vaccination; at 21 days; and then at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after vaccination. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive probability quotient, negative probability quotient, and concordance (kappa index) were calculated for each serological test.
resultsThe maximum sensitivity values for IgG were 98.7%, 98.1%, and 97.8% for the EUROIMMUN ELISA, Abbott CLIA, and Livzon LFIA tests, respectively, and the maximum specificity values for IgG were 99.4%, 99.9%%, and 98.4% for the ELISA, CLIA, and LFIA tests, respectively, at the third month after vaccination, representing a decrease in the antibody levels after the sixth month. The best agreement was observed between the ELISA and CLIA tests at 100% (k = 1.00). The agreement between the ELIA, CLIA, and LFIA tests was 99% (k = 0.964) at the second and third month after vaccination. Seroconversion was faster and more durable in the younger age groups.
conclusionOur study examined the equivalent and homogeneous clinical performance for IgG of three immunoassays after vaccination and found LFIA to be the most cost-effective, reliable, and accurate for routine use in population seroconversion and seroprevalence studies.
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.