ArticleDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Titers of IgG, IgM, and IgA Against SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Workers from a General Hospital in Mexico City.
Article in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the present study was to better understand the antibody concentrations in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a hospital in Mexico City with a high density of COVID-19 patients.
methodsUp to 243 HCWs were recruited in 2020 and 2022 and were sorted into three groups: hybrid immunity (HI, natural infection plus vaccination), vaccine-induced immunity (VI), and unvaccinated but RT-qPCR negative at the beginning of the pandemic (UV). Peripheral blood and nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained; additionally, saliva samples were obtained from the UV group. The titers of IgG, IgM, and IgA against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (NCP) proteins were assessed using an in-house ELISA, and positivity to the virus was determined via RT-qPCR.
resultsMost HI and VI participants were positive for serum anti-RBD IgG (92.8% and 100%, respectively), while 26.6% (for HI) and 19% (for VI) were positive for anti-NCP IgG. Regarding serum anti-RBD IgA, the VI and HI groups had positive rates of 87.3% and 66%, respectively. In contrast, the UV group showed a rate of 5.7% but the positivity for IgA in saliva was higher (52% for RBD and 35% for NCP). In addition, the highest antibody titers were obtained for anti-RBD IgG and IgA in the HI and VI groups, respectively. In saliva, the IgA antibody titer was higher for the RBD antigen (1:1280).
conclusionsThese results strengthen our understanding of antibody concentrations in HCWs during two critical years of the pandemic in a general hospital with many COVID-19 patients.
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.