ArticleBiology methods & protocols2025
Evaluation of a surrogate virus neutralization assay for detecting neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in an African population.
Article in Biology methods & protocols, 2025. 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.
- Surrogate virus neutralization test as a scalable and reliable tool for immune surveillance in booster-vaccinated populations.Scientific reports · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global resurgence of coronaviruses and the move to incorporate COVID-19 vaccines into the expanded program for immunization have warranted for a high-throughput and low-cost assay to measure and quantify mounted neutralizing antibodies as an indicator for protection against SARS-CoV-2. Hence, we evaluated the surrogate-virus-neutralization-assay (sVNT) as an alternative assay to the pseudo-virus neutralization assay (pVNT). The sVNT was used to measure neutralizing antibodies among 119 infected and/or vaccinated blood samples, against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (WT) and the Omicron-variant with reference to the pVNT. Four different cut-offs were assessed for suitability in distinguishing neutralizers: the manufacturer (>30%), literature-based (>50%) and (>80%), and population-based (>27.69%). The obtained data was analyzed using "R" through its integrated development environments; JAMOV and R-Studio. Using the WT strain, only the population-based cut-off was able to differentiate neutralizers from non-neutralizers beyond chance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.833 (95%CI, 0.505-1.0;
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.