ArticleCureus2023
Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays for Specificity in Dengue-Co-Endemic Areas.
Article in Cureus, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monkeypox (Mpox), a Resurging Global Public Health Concern: An Updated Outlook Through 2025.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Utility and usability of a dengue NS1 rapid diagnostic as a self-test.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Article
- Review
- Dengue fever coinfection in COVID-19 era: A public health concern.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Antibody Response after Homologous and Heterologous Prime-Boost COVID-19 Vaccination in a Bangladeshi Residential University Cohort.Vaccines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The overlap in clinical presentation between COVID-19 and dengue poses challenges for diagnosis in co-endemic regions. Furthermore, there have been reports of antibody cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and dengue. Our research aims to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antigens for serological testing while reducing the possibility of cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies. Method Two hundred and ten serum samples were collected from 179 patients and divided into four panels. Panels 1 and 2 consisted of COVID-19-negative healthy donors (n=81) and pre-pandemic dengue patients (n=50), respectively. Alternatively, Panel 3 (n=19) was composed of reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-positive samples collected within two weeks of COVID-19 symptom onset, while Panel 4 (n=60) was composed of positive samples collected after two weeks of symptom onset. Previously developed and characterized in-house SARS-CoV-2 spike-1 (S1), receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (N) immunoglobin G (IgG)-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays were used for the study. Results Six dengue-positive sera cross-reacted with the RBD of SARS-CoV-2. However, only one dengue-positive sera cross-reacted with the S1 and N proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Co-immobilization of S1 and RBD in different ratios revealed an 80:20 (S1:RBD) ratio as optimal for achieving an overall 96.2% sensitivity with the least cross-reaction to anti-dengue antibodies. Conclusion Our findings indicated that SARS-CoV-2 RBD-based immunoassays present more cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies than S1 and N proteins. Furthermore, co-immobilization of S1 and RBD reduces the cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies compared to RBD, thereby increasing the immunoassay specificity without affecting overall sensitivity for the dengue-endemic areas.
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.