Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37201783›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunological methods2023

Validation of dried blood spot sampling for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and total immunoglobulins in a large cohort of asymptomatic young adults.

P Ferentinos, D Snape, F Koivula, S Faustini, A Nicholson-Little, M Stacey, R Gifford, I Parsons, L Lamb, J Greeves and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2023. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P FerentinosResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK.
D SnapeResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK.
F KoivulaDepartment of Army Health and Performance Research, Andover, Hampshire, UK.
S FaustiniClinical Immunology Service, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
A Nicholson-LittleResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK.
M StaceyResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK; Research & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
R GiffordResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK; Research & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
I ParsonsResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK; Research & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
L LambResearch & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
J GreevesDepartment of Army Health and Performance Research, Andover, Hampshire, UK.
J O'HaraResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK.
A F CunninghamInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
D WoodsResearch Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK; Research & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
A RichterClinical Immunology Service, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
M K O'SheaInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Research & Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: m.k.oshea@bham.ac.uk.
Leeds Beckett University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBRoyal Navy · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetecting antibody responses following infection with SARS-CoV-2 is necessary for sero-epidemiological studies and assessing the role of specific antibodies in disease, but serum or plasma sampling is not always viable due to logistical challenges. Dried blood spot sampling (DBS) is a cheaper, simpler alternative and samples can be self-collected and returned by post, reducing risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure from direct patient contact. The value of large-scale DBS sampling for the assessment of serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 has not been assessed in depth and provides a model for examining the logistics of using this approach to other infectious diseases. The ability to measure specific antigens is attractive for remote outbreak situations where testing may be limited or for patients who require sampling after remote consultation.

methodsWe compared the performance of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid antibody detection from DBS samples with matched serum collected by venepuncture in a large population of asymptomatic young adults (N = 1070) living and working in congregate settings (military recruits, N = 625); university students, N = 445). We also compared the effect of self-sampling (ssDBS) with investigator-collected samples (labDBS) on assay performance, and the quantitative measurement of total IgA, IgG and IgM between DBS eluates and serum.

resultsBaseline seropositivity for anti-spike IgGAM antibody was significantly higher among university students than military recruits. Strong correlations were observed between matched DBS and serum samples in both university students and recruits for the anti-spike IgGAM assay. Minimal differences were found in results by ssDBS and labDBS and serum by Bland Altman and Cohen kappa analyses. LabDBS achieved 82.0% sensitivity and 98.2% specificity and ssDBS samples 86.1% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity for detecting anti-spike IgGAM antibodies relative to serum samples. For anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG there was qualitatively 100% agreement between serum and DBS samples and weak correlation in ratio measurements. Strong correlations were observed between serum and DBS-derived total IgG, IgA, and IgM.

conclusionsThis is the largest validation of DBS against paired serum for SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody measurement and we have shown that DBS retains performance from prior smaller studies. There were no significant differences regarding DBS collection methods, suggesting that self-collected samples are a viable sampling collection method. These data offer confidence that DBS can be employed more widely as an alternative to classical serology.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antibodies, ViralDried Blood Spot TestingHumansImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MAntibody responsesDried blood spotELISASARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37201783
PMCPMC10185490
OpenAlexW4376649070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.