ArticleScientific reports2026
Diagnostic performance evaluation of Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay against RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection and surveillance in Ethiopian referral hospitals: cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Serological Survey of SARS-CoV-2 in Wild Canids in Serbia: First Report in Red Foxes and Golden Jackals.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis is vital for controlling viral spread and guiding clinical and public health decisions. This study aimed to determine active (determined by RT-PCR) and past SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by serology test) and evaluate the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assay performance relative to RT-PCR as a reference for COVID-19 diagnosis and surveillance in Ethiopian hospitals. We conducted a cross-sectional study across five hospitals from August 9-23, 2021, enrolling 1,360 consecutive patients. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR) and blood samples (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2) were collected from all participants. Data were analyzed using Stata 14 to evaluate diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity), test agreement (Cohen's κ), comparative accuracy (ROC analysis), and predictors of infection using logistic regression (p < 0.05 threshold for significance). The mean age of study participants was 36.2 years (SD ± 17.2); 52% were females, with 418 (29.2%) reporting COVID-like symptoms. Seroprevalence was 53.2%, while 18% had active RT-PCR-confirmed infections. Urban residence (AOR = 8.44, 3.92-18.17), fever (AOR = 1.74, 1.02-2.96), myalgia (AOR = 2.62, 1.48-4.64), and cough (AOR = 1.84, 1.01-3.36) were significantly associated with active infection. The Elecsys test showed poor diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity = 14% [12.1-15.8%]; specificity = 77.9% [75.7-80.1%]; AUC = 0.43; the overall agreement 43.9%, κ = 0.078). These findings highlight a high burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a resource-constrained setting. While the Elecsys immunoassay demonstrated low sensitivity and poor agreement with RT-PCR, indicating it is not suitable for diagnosing active infection, its high specificity makes it a valuable tool for sero-surveillance to estimate population exposure and inform public health strategy where RT-PCR capacity is limited.
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.