ArticleImmunity, inflammation and disease2026
Performance of Three Commercial Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Detection of IgM and IgG Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 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.
- Performance of Three Commercial Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Detection of IgM and IgG Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite widespread vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 transmission continues, and serological testing remains relevant for selected diagnostic scenarios and population-based assessments of antibody responses. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are attractive for field use and decentralized settings, but their diagnostic performance varies and requires independent evaluation. We assessed the performance of three commercially available lateral flow RDTs (PANBIO™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device, Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz TR COVID-19 (IgM-IgG), and Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz TR DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG) in Salvador, Brazil.
methodsUsing blind analyses, we evaluated 257 serum samples from RT-PCR-confirmed cases and 199 control samples from individuals with other febrile illnesses or healthy donors collected before and during the pandemic.
resultsOverall sensitivity for IgM or IgG detection was limited across all tests (52%-58%), while specificity was high for two assays (97%-98%) and lower for one (80%). Sensitivity peaked between 11 and 20 days after symptom onset (80%-91%) and declined thereafter. Among 75 vaccinated individuals without prior COVID-19, antibody positivity ranged from 39% to 55%.
conclusionThese findings indicate that the evaluated RDTs had high specificity but insufficient sensitivity for reliable clinical diagnosis or for assessing vaccination status in serological surveys. Our results support cautious use of these assays and highlight the need for more accurate and robust antibody-based rapid tests to strengthen immunological surveillance and public health preparedness in the post-pandemic period.
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.