ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
The impact of statistical adjustment for assay performance on inferences from SARS-CoV-2 serological surveillance studies.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choice of immunoassay influences population seroprevalence estimates. Post hoc adjustments for assay performance could improve comparability of estimates across studies and enable pooled analyses. We assessed post hoc adjustment methods using data from 2021 to 2023 SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies in Alberta, Canada: one that tested 124 008 blood donations using Roche immunoassays (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid total antibody and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and another that tested 214 780 patient samples using Abbott immunoassays (SARS-CoV-2 IgG and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S). Comparing datasets, seropositivity for antibodies against nucleocapsid (anti-N) diverged after May 2022 due to differential loss of sensitivity as a function of time since infection. The commonly used Rogan-Gladen adjustment did not reduce this divergence. Regression-based adjustments using the assays' semiquantitative results produced more similar estimates of anti-N seroprevalence and rolling incidence proportion (proportion of individuals infected in recent months). Seropositivity for antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was similar without adjustment, and concordance was not improved when applying an alternative, functional threshold. These findings suggest that assay performance substantially impacted population inferences from SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies in the Omicron period. Unlike methods that ignore time-varying assay sensitivity, regression-based methods using the semiquantitative assay resulted in increased concordance in estimated anti-N seropositivity and rolling incidence between cohorts using different assays.
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.