ArticleScientific reports2024
Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Japanese healthcare workers from 2020 to 2022 as assayed by two commercial kits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Antibody tests are used as surveillance tools for informing health policy making. However, results may vary by type of antibody assay and timing of sample collection following infection. Long-term longitudinal cohort studies on antibody assay seropositivity have remained limited, especially among Asian populations. Using blood samples obtained at health physicals (2020-2022) of healthcare workers (mass vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) at a Japanese medical center, we measured N-specific antibodies using two commercially available systems. Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 measures total antibodies and Abbott Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG measures only IgG. Among 2538 participants, seroprevalence was found to be 16.6% via total antibody assay versus 12.9% by IgG-only (including grayzone) by mid-June 2022. For 219 cases with a previous PCR-confirmed infection, positivity was 97.3% using total antibody assay versus 76.3% using IgG-only assay at the 2022 health physical. Using PCR positive test date as day 0, while the positivity of the total antibody assay was retained for the entire study period (until more than 24-months post-infection), the IgG-only assay's positivity declined after month 4. The Mantel-Haenszel test found a significant difference in the two assays' seropositivity, between stratified groups of "within 3 months" and "4 months or more" from infection (P < 0.001). Our study found significant differences in seropositivity over time of total antibody versus IgG-only assays, suggesting an optimal assay for retaining sensitivity over the entire infection period when designing seroprevalence studies.
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.