ArticlePloS one2024
Characterization of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 Orf8 from three waves of COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A dynamic of virus adaptation and a mass vaccination campaign could significantly reduce the severity of clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and transmission. Hence, COVID-19 may become an endemic disease globally. Moreover, mass infection as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed affected the serology of the patients as a result of virus mutation and vaccination. Therefore, a need exists to acquire accurate serological testing to monitor the emergence of new outbreaks of COVID-19 to promptly prevent and control the disease spreading. In this study, the anti-Orf8 antibodies among samples collected in Thailand's first, fourth, and fifth waves of COVID-19 outbreaks compared with pre-epidemic sera were determined by indirect ELISA. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the anti-Orf8 IgG ELISA for COVID-19 samples from the first, fourth, and fifth waves of outbreaks was found to be 100% compared with pre-epidemic sera. However, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the anti-Orf8 IgG ELISA for a larger number of patient samples and controls from the fifth wave of outbreaks which were collected on day 7 and 14 after an RT-PCR positive result were 58.79 and 58.44% and 89.19 and 58.44%, respectively. Our data indicated that some of the controls might have antibodies from natural past infections. Our study highlighted the potential utility of anti-Orf8 IgG antibody testing for seroprevalence surveys but still warrants further investigations.
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.