ArticleViruses2023
Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in Recovered and Vaccinated Healthcare Workers.
Article in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Test Detecting Neutralizing Antibodies against the Major Variants of Concern.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Transplacental transfer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in comparison to other pathogens total antibodies.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination against COVID-19 is the main public health approach to fight against the pandemic. The Spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is the principal target of the neutralizing humoral response. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performances of a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) compared to conventional neutralization tests (cVNTs) and anti-S eCLIA assays in recovered and/or vaccinated healthcare workers. Our results indicate that sVNTs displayed high specificity and no cross-reactivity. Both eCLIA and sVNT immunoassays were good at identifying cVNT serum dilutions ≥1:16. The optimal thresholds when identifying cVNT titers ≥1:16, were 74.5 U/mL and 49.4 IU/mL for anti-S eCLIA and sVNT, respectively. Our data show that neutralizing antibody titers (Nab) differ from one individual to another and may diminish over time. Specific assays such as sVNTs could offer a reliable complementary tool to routine anti-S serological assays.
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.