ArticleBiosensors2023
Comparison of Three Lateral Flow Immunoassay Formats for the Detection of Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen.
Article in Biosensors, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibodies, repertoires and microdevices in antibody discovery and characterization.Lab on a chip · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Reliable detection of specific antibodies against pathogens by lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) greatly depends on the composition of the detectable complex and the order of its assembly. We compared three LFIA formats for revealing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in sera with the following detected complexes in the analytical zone of the strip: antigen-antibodies-labeled immunoglobulin-binding protein (Scheme A); antigen-antibodies-labeled antigen (Scheme B); and immunoglobulin-binding protein-antibodies-labeled antigen (Scheme C). The lowest detection limit was observed for Scheme C, and was equal to 10 ng/mL of specific humanized monoclonal antibodies. When working with pooled positive sera, Scheme C had a detection limit 15 times lower than Scheme B and 255 times lower than Scheme A. Due to the high sensitivity of Scheme C, its application for the panel of human sera (n = 22) demonstrated 100% diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. These consistent results be useful for designing the format of LFIA serodiagnosis for other diseases.
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.