Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2022 article

The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19

18Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
2Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : in. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The role and performance of various serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of seven commercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by testing COVID-19 cases and controls. METHODS: Adult patients with fever for > 5 days, admitted to a tertiary-care teaching hospital in South India, were enrolled prospectively between June and December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed patients were classified as cases, and patients with febrile illness with laboratory-confirmed alternative diagnosis and healthy participants were controls. All participants were tested with SCoV-2 Detect™ IgM ELISA kit and SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA kit (InBios International, Seattle, USA) (Inbios), SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Tarrytown, USA) (Siemens), Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (Roche), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA) (Abbott), and Liaison® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorinS.p.A., Saluggia, Italy) (Liaison). The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracies were compared. RESULTS: There were 303 participants: 153 cases and 150 controls. ELISA detecting anti-S protein antibody was more sensitive (88.9% for IgG and 86.3% for IgM) than the CLIAs (82.4% for total antibodies and 76.5-85.6% for IgG). Among CLIAs, Roche IgG was most sensitive (85.6%) followed by Abbott (83%) and Liaison (83%). Abbot had the best PPV (88.8%) and was more specific (89.3%) than Liaison (82%) and Roche (82%). Siemens IgG was less sensitive (76.5%) than Siemens Total (82.4%). The specificity of all the serological assays was modest (75-90%). Antibody test positivity increased with the duration of illness reaching 90% after 10 days of illness. When cases were compared against pre-pandemic controls, the IgG gave excellent specificity (98-100%). For seroprevalence studies, InBios IgG had the best accuracy (90.8%) with 88.9% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity. CONCLUSION: The serological assays are important adjuncts for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with persistent symptoms, especially in the second week of illness. The value of serological diagnostic tests is limited in the first week of illness and they provide additional value in seroprevalence studies. The diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA and CLIA platforms were comparable.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19
Date Crossref
19/04/2022
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.