ArticleIJID regions2024
Assessing the performance of commercial serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
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.
- A comparative study of COVID-19 point-of-care detection across human biofluids using MEMS-based near-infrared spectroscopy and machine learning.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has triggered a global pandemic with profound implications for public health. Rapid changes in the pandemic landscape and limitations in Methods: We collected 90 serum samples from SARS-CoV-2-negative blood donors and 352 from SARS-CoV-2-positive, unvaccinated patients, categorized by symptom onset. Subsequently, we assessed the diagnostic performance of three commercial enzyme immunoassays: GOLD ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) COVID-19 Ig (immunoglobulin) G + IgM, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA, and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA. Results: Our findings revealed that the GOLD ELISA COVID-19 IgG + IgM exhibited the highest sensitivity (57.7%) and diagnostic odds ratio, surpassing the manufacturer's reported sensitivity in most analyzed time frames while maintaining exceptional specificity (98.9%). Conversely, the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA demonstrated lower sensitivity but aligned with independent evaluations, boasting a specificity of 100%. However, the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA exhibited lower sensitivity than claimed, particularly in samples collected shortly after positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results. Performance improved 15-21 days after symptom onset and beyond 22 days, but in the first week, both Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA struggled to differentiate positive and negative samples. Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the need for standardized validation protocols to address discrepancies between manufacturer-claimed and actual performance. These insights provide essential information for health care practitioners and policymakers regarding the diagnostic capabilities of these assays in various clinical scenarios.
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.