ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India
Which test results to believe? Comparison of different ELISA kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody among COVID-vaccinated individuals.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quality evaluation strategy for residual host cell proteins based on orthogonal analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Infectious disease challenges in the post-COVID era.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
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: In the context of SARS-CoV-2, infection and immunization lead to varied levels of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) crucial for protective immunity. In the lack of universal availability of plaque reduction neutralization tests, the gold standard centers rely on surrogate kits, for which performance standards and validation are lacking. Hence, we assessed three NAb kits available in India to determine their agreement and concordance. Methods: It's a single-center cross-sectional observation study conducted during the third wave of the pandemic starting in January 2022 amongst individuals (n: 247) who received the first two doses of Covishield Results: NAb was detected in 80.4%, 82.9%, and 21% samples using the three different kits. Discordance was observed in 19.68%, 65.7%, and 62.6% between Kit A-B, A-C, and B-C, respectively. The agreement was fair between Kit A-B (κ-0.35; p: 0.06) and Kit B-C (κ-0.09; p: 0.0005). Kit-B showed higher mean percentage inhibition (74.6 ± 32.1%) than Kit-A (68.1 ± 35.7%) (p: 0.0347). The correlation between kit-A and kit-B was moderate (r: 0.57; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: There is significant discordance between various commercials, which raises questions about their validity. The research underscores the need for robust validation and standardization of NAb tests to ensure their reliability and effectiveness in guiding public health strategies.
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.