ArticleScientific reports2025
SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody determination after vaccination using spectrophotometric measurement of lateral flow immunochromatography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neutralizing antibody titers have been found to be strongly correlated with observed vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Few non-high complexity assays are currently available to detect the presence of neutralizing antibodies. This retrospective single-center cross-sectional study compared the performance of a lateral flow immunochromatography assay coupled with a spectrophotometric measurement system for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies against an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) neutralization antibody assay in the context of post-vaccination responses. The limit of detection was similar to the ELISA with strong linearity throughout the measuring interval. Repeatability, interfering substances, and cross-reactivity studies were found to be robust. Results for 274 plasma samples on whom SARS-CoV-2 RNA test and vaccination status, including vaccination number and manufacturer, was known showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99.0% (CI 96.4-99.7%) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.9% (CI 83.4-96.2%) compared to ELISA. The PPV for all vaccination number and manufacturer subgroups was > 95% except for those individuals who had only 1 Pfizer vaccination (PPV of 80%). The NPV for those who were PCR positive with no vaccinations was 100% while only 88.1% for those without a previous positive test or vaccination. The NPV for those with Pfizer vaccinations was 80% in contrast to 100% for those with Moderna vaccinations. Alternative methodologies requiring less sophisticated laboratory support to measure neutralizing antibodies may be useful to measure vaccine responses.
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.