Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38003824›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in an Exposed Human Population Is Biased by the Immunoassay Used: Implications in Serosurveillance.

Francisco Llorente, Elisa Pérez-Ramírez, Mayte Pérez-Olmeda, Desirée Dafouz-Bustos, Jovita Fernández-Pinero, Mercedes Martínez-Cortés, Miguel Ángel Jiménez-Clavero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francisco LlorenteCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA-INIA), CSIC, Valdeolmos, 28130 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1566-0266
Elisa Pérez-RamírezCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA-INIA), CSIC, Valdeolmos, 28130 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7701-9816
Mayte Pérez-OlmedaCentro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28220 Majadahonda, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4553-5423
Desirée Dafouz-BustosCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA-INIA), CSIC, Valdeolmos, 28130 Madrid, Spain.
Jovita Fernández-PineroCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA-INIA), CSIC, Valdeolmos, 28130 Madrid, Spain.
Mercedes Martínez-CortésMadrid Salud, Madrid City Council, 28007 Madrid, Spain.
Miguel Ángel Jiménez-ClaveroCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA-INIA), CSIC, Valdeolmos, 28130 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2125-9743
Centro de Investigación en Sanidad AnimalCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ES

Funding

Ayuntamiento de Madrid Specific epidemiological and health studies of Covid-19 to know the prevalence of the disease in essential operational sectors
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was examined over 7 months in a population of essential service workers exposed during the first epidemic wave in Madrid (Spain). Results obtained with different serological assays were compared. Firstly, serum samples obtained in April 2020 were analyzed using eleven SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection methods, including seven ELISAs, two CLIAs and two LFAs. While all of the ELISA tests and the Roche eCLIA method showed good performance, it was poorer for the Abbott CLIA and LFA tests. Sera from 115 workers with serologically positive results in April were collected 2 and 7 months after the first sampling and were analyzed using five of the tests previously assessed. The results showed that while some ELISA tests consistently detected the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies even 7 months after first detection, other methods, such as the Abbott CLIA test, showed an important reduction in sensitivity for these mature antibodies. The sensitivity increased after establishing new cut-off values, calculated taking into account both recent and old infections, suggesting that an adjustment of assay parameters may improve the detection of individuals exposed to the infection.

Indexed as

CLIACOVID-19ELISALFASARS-CoV-2serologic assays

Identifiers

PMID38003824
PMCPMC10675702
OpenAlexW4388732090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.