Observational studyThe Journal of infectious diseases2025
Evaluation of the Feasibility and Efficacy of Point-of-Care Antibody Tests for Biomarker-Guided Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Observational study in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05227404 (Evaluation of the Feasibility and Reproducibility of 2 Point-of-Care Tests for SARS-Co-V-2 Antibodies), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Feasibility and Reproducibility of 2 Point-of-Care Tests for SARS-Co-V-2 Antibodies (INSIGHT 017)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Piezoelectric Chemosensors and Biosensors in Medical Diagnostics.Biosensors · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiomarker-guided therapy could improve management of inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests.
methodsCOVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDx and RightSign. Ease of use data were collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using an established antibody assay (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome.
resultsWhile both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDx assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity whereas the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDx assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes.
conclusionsAlthough both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDx test treating GenScript as the gold standard. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT05227404.
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.