ArticlePeerJ2023
Sex difference in the discordance between Abbott Architect and EuroImmun serological assays.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated the discordance between Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA in a seroprevalence study. Methods: From June 10 to August 15, 2020, 8,246 specimens were dually evaluated by the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EI) assays. Sex-stratified phi correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concordance between Abbott and EI assay's quantitative results. Multivariable mixed-effect logistic models were implemented to evaluate the association between assay positivity and sex on a low prevalence sample while controlling for age, race, ethnicity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, immunosuppressive therapy, and autoimmune disease. Results: EI positivity among males was 2.1-fold that of females; however, no significant differences in Abbott positivity were observed between sexes. At the manufacturer-recommended threshold, the phi correlation coefficient for the Abbott and EI qualitative results among females (Φ = 0.47) was 34% greater than males (Φ = 0.35). The unadjusted and fully adjusted models yielded a strong association between sex and positive EI result for the low prevalence subgroup (unadjusted OR: 2.24, CI: 1.63, 3.11, adjusted OR: 3.40, CI: 2.15, 5.39). A similar analysis of Abbott positivity in the low prevalence subgroup did not find an association with any of the covariates examined. Significant quantitative and qualitative discordance was observed between Abbott and EI throughout the seroprevalence study. Our results suggest the presence of sex-associated specificity limitations with the EI assay. As these findings may extend to other anti-S assays utilized for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence investigations, further investigation is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these findings.
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.