ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2023
A comparison of 7 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Head-to-Head Comparison of 5 Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assays Performance in One Hundred COVID-19 Vaccinees, over an 8-Month Course.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2022Review
- Anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assessment with a Commercial Assay during a 4-Month Course after COVID-19 Vaccination.Vaccines · 2021Article
- The real life performance of 7 automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM/IgA immunoassays.Practical laboratory medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Serological testing in SARS-CoV-2 infection is gaining both patients' and clinicians' attention. Antibody assessment has potential multidirectional utility, hampered by the scarcity of clinical validation studies of the tests available on the market. Therefore, this study aimed to provide some evidence on the clinical utility of anti-SARS-CoV-2 commercial assays, based on the comparison of the results obtained with different methods. Material and methods: The study included 52 samples from patients and healthy volunteers. The control samples ( Results: The results obtained in this study provide evidence for high overall concordance between the comparative CLIA method and both ELISA and different LFIAs. The agreement between CLIA and LFIAs was 92.3-98.0% for IgG and 90.0-96.1% for IgM, depending on the kit. The concordance between CLIA and ELISA was 92.3% for IgG and 75.0% for IgA (compared to the MAGLUMI CLIA IgM). Conclusions: The results obtained in this study provide evidence for high overall concordance between the comparative CLIA method and different LFIAs. This could justify the use of LFIAs in some settings, where automated assays are not available, provided that some limitations are considered.
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.