ArticleSouthern African journal of infectious diseases2025
A multicentre study comparing post-mortem SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in Cape Town mortuaries.
Article in Southern African journal of infectious diseases, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recognised as a global pandemic in 2019, yet the exact number of infections is still unclear. In addition, there is limited research on post-mortem antibody testing. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the use of the SureScreen COVID-19 immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM Rapid Test Cassette in deceased individuals by comparing it to the gold-standard antibody tests in South Africa, and to identify the most appropriate antibody testing method for post-mortem samples. Method: Between May 2021 and February 2023, fifty cases, with suspected COVID-19 infection during their lifetime, were recruited from Tygerberg Mortuary and Salt River Mortuary, after obtaining informed consent from their next-of-kin. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was confirmed through antemortem positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (PCP) tests in 39 participants. Blood samples were collected during autopsies in serum separator tubes, which yielded better separation when centrifuged immediately after collection. The SureScreen test was performed alongside Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays. Results: Among the confirmed PCP cases, Elecsys demonstrated the highest sensitivity (97.1%) followed by SureScreen IgG (82.1%). In a logistic regression analysis, PCP confirmation was significantly associated with the SureScreen IgG results ( Conclusion: Overall, Roche's Elecsys had the highest yield of positive results on our cohort of post-mortem serum samples, followed by SureScreen, and finally, Abbott's Architect assay. Contribution: These results suggest that the SureScreen test has potential as a screening tool in mortuary settings, with Roche's Elecsys assay recommended for diagnostic confirmation.
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.