ArticleIJID regions2024
Usefulness of receptor binding domain protein-based serodiagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in IJID regions, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the performance of commercial serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.IJID regions · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the performance of recombinant receptor binding domain (RBD) protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (RBD-ELISAs) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM antibodies. Methods: In this study, 705 sera from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and 315 sera from healthy individuals were analyzed. Results: The RBD-ELISA IgG exhibited high specificity (99.1%) and moderate sensitivity (48.0%), with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 73.5%. RBD-ELISA IgM demonstrated specificity at 94.6% and sensitivity at 51.1%, with an accuracy of 72.8%. Both assays displayed improved performance when analyzing samples collected 15-21 days post-symptom onset, achieving sensitivity and accuracy exceeding 88% and 90%, respectively. Combining RBD-ELISA IgG and IgM in parallel analysis enhanced sensitivity to 98.6% and accuracy to 96.2%. Comparing these RBD-ELISAs with commercially available tests, the study found overlapping sensitivity and similar specificity values. Notably, the combined RBD-ELISA IgG and IgM showed superior performance. Cross-reactivity analysis revealed low false-positive rates (4.4% for IgG, 3.7% for IgM), primarily with viral infections. Conclusion: This research underscores the potential of RBD-based ELISAs for COVID-19 diagnosis, especially when assessing samples collected 15-21 days post-symptom onset and utilizing a parallel testing approach. The RBD protein's immunogenicity and specificity make it a valuable tool for serodiagnosis, offering an alternative to polymerase chain reaction-based methods, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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.