ArticleScientific reports2024
Multicentric evaluation of sensitivity of eight commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and their correlation to virus neutralization titers in seropositive subjects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a monoclonal antibody-based competitive ELISA for serological detection of lumpy skin disease virus.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- COVID-19 point-of-care tests can identify low-antibody individuals: In-depth immunoanalysis of boosting benefits in a healthy cohort.Science advances · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus is mainly based on direct detection. Determination of specific antibodies has been used mostly for epidemiological reasons. However, select immunoassays showed good correlation to plaque reduction virus neutralization test (PRNT) in smaller patient cohorts, which suggests their potential as predictors of virus neutralization titer. A total of 3,699 samples from Covid-19 patients were included in the multicentric study performed in the Czech Republic. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were evaluated by 8 commercial antibody assays. Simultaneously, PRNT evaluations were performed with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.258 variant. All immunoassays showed an overall high true positive diagnostic value ranging from 79.17 to 98.04%. Several commercial EIA methods showed highly positive correlation between the assay results and PRNT levels, e.g., Liaison CoV-2 TrimericS IgG DiaSorin (Spearman r = 0.8833; Architect SASRS-CoV-2 IgG Abbott (r = 0.7298); NovaLisa SARS-CoV-2 IgG NovaTec (r = 0.7103) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG Euroimmun (r = 0.7094). While this correlation was less positive for other assays, those, conversely, presented higher true positive values. For most immunoassays, the positive percent agreement of the results was ≥ 95% in sera exhibiting PRNT levels of 1:80 and higher. The assays tested have shown variable correlation to PRNT. Those possessing high positive predictive values serve well as qualitative tests, while others can be utilised as quantitative tests highly predictive of neutralization antibody levels.
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.