ArticlePloS one2023
Standardization of in-house anti-IgG and IgA ELISAs for the detection of COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RT-PCR detection of viral RNA represents the gold standard method for diagnosis of COVID-19. However, multiple diagnostic tests are needed for acute disease diagnosis and assessing immunity during the COVID-19 outbreak. Here, we developed in-house anti-RBD IgG and IgA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using a well-defined serum sample panel for screening and identification of human SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found that our in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA displayed a 93.5% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity whereas our in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA ELISA provided assay sensitivity and specificity at 89.5% and 99.4%, respectively. The agreement kappa values of our in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISA assays were deemed to be excellent and fair, respectively, when compared to RT-PCR and excellent for both assays when compared to Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs. These data indicate that our in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs are compatible performing assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.