ArticleVirology journal2023
Evaluation of ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests in comparison with WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 ab ELISA in Burkina Faso, West Africa.
Article in Virology journal, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of a dual-target SARS CoV-2 antibody assay using sera from Ghana.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Seroprevalence and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in middle-sized cities of Burkina Faso: A descriptive cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests shows significant variability in performance across different years of infection and between the tests.Journal of clinical virology plus · 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
21 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests in comparison with the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test in a laboratory setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen (10) SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM were evaluated with two (2) groups of plasma tested positive for one and negative for the other with the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA. The diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 serological RDTs and their agreement with the reference test were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe sensitivity of serological RDTs ranged from 27.39 to 61.67% and the specificity from 93.33 to 100% compared to WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test. Of all the tests, two tests (STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo SD BIOSENSOR and COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech Co., Ltd)) had a sensitivity greater than 50%. In addition, all ten tests had specificity greater than or equal to 93.33% each. The concordance between RDTs and WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test ranged from 0.25 to 0.61.
conclusionThe SARS-CoV-2 serological RDTs evaluated show low and variable sensitivities compared to the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test, with however a good specificity. These finding may have implications for the interpretation and comparison of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies depending on the type of test used.
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.