ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comprehensive Study of the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Multiple detection method for SARS-CoV-2 with aptamer cocktails depending on their localization in paper-based assays.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis primarily relies on molecular tests, highly sensitive during early infection stages with high viral loads. As the disease progresses, sensitivity decreases, requiring antibody detection. Since the beginning of the pandemic, serological tests have been developed and made available in Brazil, but their diagnostic performance varies. This study evaluated the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 kit performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A total of 90 samples, including 64 from COVID-19 patients and 26 pre-pandemic donors, were assessed based on time post symptom onset (0-7, 8-14, and 15-21 days). The kit showed 61% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 72% accuracy overall. Sensitivity varied with time, being 25%, 57%, and 96% for 0-7, 8-14, and 15-21 days, respectively. Similar variations were noted in other commercial tests. The Gold ELISA COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) had sensitivities of 31%, 71%, and 100%, while the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP ELISA (IgG) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP ELISA (IgM) showed varying sensitivities. The IBMP ELISA kit displayed high diagnostic capability, especially as the disease progressed, complementing COVID-19 diagnosis. Reproducibility assessment revealed minimal systematic and analytical errors. In conclusion, the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 kit is a robust tool for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, increasing in efficacy over the disease course, and minimizing false negatives in RT-PCR COVID-19 diagnosis.
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.