ArticleJournal of virological methods2023
Comparative study between virus neutralisation testing and other serological methods detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Europe, 2021.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One consequence of the ongoing coronavirus disease pandemic was the rapid development of both in-house and commercial serological assays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an effort to reliably detect acute and past SARS-CoV-2 infections. It is crucial to evaluate the quality of these serological tests and consequently the sero-epidemiological studies that are performed with the respective tests. Here, we describe the set-up and results of a comparative study, in which a laboratory contracted by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control offered a centralised service to EU/EEA Member and pre-accession Member States to test representative serum specimens with known serological results, with the gold standard technique (virus neutralisation tests) to determine the presence of neutralising antibodies. Laboratories from 12 European countries shared 719 serum specimens with the contractor laboratory. We found that in-house serological tests detecting neutralising antibodies showed the highest percent agreement, both positive and negative, with the virus neutralisation test results. Despite extensive differences in virus neutralisation protocols neutralisation titres showed a strong correlation. From the commercial assays, the best positive percent agreement was found for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) (Siemens - Atellica IM Analyzer). Despite lower positive percent agreement of LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG kit (Diasorin Inc.), the obtained results showed relatively good correlation with neutralisation titres. The set-up of this study allowed for high comparability between laboratories and enabled laboratories that do not have the capacity or capability to perform VNTs themselves. Given the variety of in-house protocols detecting SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralising antibodies, including the virus strain, it could be of interest to select reference isolates for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic to be made available for interested EU Member States and pre-accession countries.
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.