Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36680146›Full record

ReviewViruses2022

Laboratory-Based SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Serologic Assays Perform with Equivalent Sensitivity and Specificity to Commercial FDA-EUA Approved Tests.

Mary Nehring, Sierra Pugh, Tina Dihle, Emily Gallichotte, Terry Nett, Eric Weber, Christie Mayo, Lori Lynn, Greg Ebel, Bailey K Fosdick and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Mary NehringDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Sierra PughDepartment of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3792-5253
Tina DihleHealth and Medical Center Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Emily GallichotteDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Terry NettDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Eric WeberDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Christie MayoDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Lori LynnHealth and Medical Center Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Greg EbelDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Bailey K FosdickDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO 80206, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3736-2219
Sue VandeWoudeDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9227-1622

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During early phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, many research laboratories repurposed their efforts towards developing diagnostic testing that could aid public health surveillance while commercial and public diagnostic laboratories developed capacity and validated large scale testing methods. Simultaneously, the rush to produce point-of-care and diagnostic facility testing resulted in FDA Emergency Use Authorization with scarce and poorly validated clinical samples. Here, we review serologic test results from 186 serum samples collected in early phases of the pandemic (May 2020) from skilled nursing facilities tested with six laboratory-based and two commercially available assays. Serum neutralization titers were used to set cut-off values using positive to negative ratio (P/N) analysis to account for batch effects. We found that laboratory-based receptor binding domain (RBD) binding assays had equivalent or superior sensitivity and specificity compared to commercially available tests. We also determined seroconversion rate and compared with qPCR outcomes. Our work suggests that research laboratory assays can contribute reliable surveillance information and should be considered important adjuncts to commercial laboratory testing facilities during early phases of disease outbreaks.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsAntibodies, Virallaboratory diagnosticsSARS-CoV-2serologysurveillance

Identifiers

PMID36680146
PMCPMC9860642

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.