ArticleScientific reports2023
Sensitivity and performance of three novel quantitative assays of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in blood.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Residual-Serum SARS-CoV-2-N-Antigen Testing for Hospital Surveillance in Germany.Journal of medical virology · 2026Article
- Rational design and high-yield expression of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen for a sensitive and specific in-house ELISA.BMC biotechnology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Four Assays That Measure Antibodies to Ebola Virus Glycoprotein.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Single-Cell and Plasma Proteomics Do Not Differentiate Patients With and Without SARS-CoV-2 Antigenemia in Convalescence in a Cohort of 100 Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Sandwich ELISA for the Quantification of Nucleocapsid Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Based on Polyclonal Antibodies from Two Different Species.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- New Anti-RSV Nucleoprotein Monoclonal Antibody Pairs Discovered Using Rabbit Phage Display Technology.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Heterotypic responses against nsp12/nsp13 from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection associates with lower subsequent endemic coronavirus incidence.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Performance of Blood-Based Nucleocapsid Antigen Tests for Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Infectious Viral Shedding: A Systematic Review.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Development and validation of a multiplex electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to evaluate dry eye disease in rat tear fluids.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Label-Free Saliva Test for Rapid Detection of Coronavirus Using Nanosensor-Enabled SERS.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess if SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) systemic disease can be determined by available nucleoprotein assays, we compared the performance of three commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N) assays in plasma. A total of 272 plasma samples collected in the period November-December 2021 were analyzed by the methods Simoa SARS CoV-2 N Protein Advantage Kit [Quanterix Simoa], Solsten SARS-CoV-2 Antigen enzyme immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [Solsten ELISA], and Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay [Elecsys ECLIA]. Additionally, a dilution series of inactivated virus culture was analyzed by the three assays. The SARS CoV-2 PCR-status was not known for the patients. Linear correlation in the pairwise correlation between assays as well as linearity of dilution series of inactivated virus culture was estimated by Spearman score. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated by pairwise comparison. The three assays showed poor agreement on patient samples with regards to concentration. Performance on virus culture was excellent but with different level of detection (LOD). Positive vs negative results show comparable sensitivity and specificity of Quanterix Simoa and Solsten ELISA, with a higher LOD in Elecsys ECLIA and thus lower sensitivity and high specificity. N by all tested assays can be used as a marker for systemic COVID-19 disease.
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.