ArticleScientific reports2024
Performance evaluation of microfluidic microplate-based fluorescent ELISA for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgM.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic performance of newly developed microfluidic microplate-based fluorescent ELISA for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection: the Veri-Q opti COVID-19 IgG and IgM ELISAs (hereafter, "Opti IgG/M"; MiCo BioMed, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), in comparison with conventional ELISAs. A total of 270 serum samples were analyzed, among which 90 samples were serially obtained from 25 COVID-19 patients. Another 180 samples were collected from 180 SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals. As comparative assays, we used SCoV-2 Detect IgG/M ELISA (hereafter, "InBios IgG/M"; InBios, Seattle, WA, USA) and Veri-Q COVID-19 IgG/IgM ELISA (hereafter, "Veri-Q IgG/M"; MiCo BioMed). Compared with conventional ELISAs, the Opti IgG yielded 97.1-100.0% positive percent agreement, 95.2-98.0% negative percent agreement, 96.3-97.8% total percent agreement, and kappa values of 0.90-0.94. Between the Opti IgM and the InBios IgM, the values were 93.7%, 96.6%, 95.9%, and 0.89, respectively. For the Opti IgG, sensitivities for the samples collected from 0-7, 8-14, 15-21, and ≥ 22 days after symptom onset were 40.0, 58.3, 94.1, and 100.0%, respectively. The values for the Opti IgM were 30.0, 54.2, 88.2, and 80%, respectively. The diagnostic specificities of the Opti IgG and IgM were 99.4 and 97.2%, respectively. The microfluidic microplate-based fluorescent ELISAs showed comparable diagnostic performance to conventional ELISAs for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. With the combination of high throughput, a simplified workflow, and the ability to analyze reduced volumes, this new technology has great potential for improving SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing.
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.