About: Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
Creator	Den, Van Soleimani, Reza Beatrice, Gulbis Benoit, Kabamba Damien, Gruson Fleur, Wolff Hafid, Dahma Hector, Rodriguez-Villalobos Isabel, Montesinos Olivier, Vandenberg R-Villalobos, Hector Sigi, Wijngaert Vincenzo, Carbone Vdw, Sigi
Source	Elsevier; Medline; PMC
abstract	INTRODUCTION: Several SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been developed recently. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: Two quantitative automated immunoassays (Maglumi(TM) 2019-n-Cov IgG and IgM and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA assays) and three lateral flow rapid tests were performed. This retrospective study included 200 residual sera from patients and healthy volunteers. Case serum samples (n = 128) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-qPCR and CT-scan. Days since onset of symptoms was collected from their medical records. Control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n = 72) were obtained from anonymous stored residual serum samples. RESULTS: Maglumi(TM) IgG/IgM tests showed overall less sensitivity than Euroimmun IgG/IgA test (84.4% versus 64.3%). Both tests showed similar specificities of IgG at 99% and 100%, respectively. The two tests showed similar specificity for IgG at 99% and 100%, respectively. The results from the lateral flow assays were easily interpretable with unambiguous coloured reading bands. The overall sensitivity of the three tests was similar (around 70%) without any significant differences. The sensitivity of the three lateral flow assays and also of the serological quantitative assays increased during the second week after symptom onset and all reached similar values (91% to 94%) after 14 days. CONCLUSION: This study shows accurate and equivalent performance of the five serological antibody assays (ELISA, CLIA and three lateral flow tests) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 14 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This is compatible with their application in specific clinical contexts and in determining epidemiological strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic.
has issue date	2020-05-05(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104413
bibo:pmid	32403010
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	57626a1add7bdbd1e608a80904a6bf12b540561b
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104413
resource representing a document's title	Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7198434
has PubMed identifier	32403010
schema:publication	J Clin Virol
resource representing a document's body	covid:57626a1add7bdbd1e608a80904a6bf12b540561b#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'IgM' named entity 'tests' named entity 'flow' named entity 'FLOW' named entity 'SIMILAR' named entity '100%' named entity 'IMMUNOASSAYS' named entity 'ONSET OF SYMPTOMS' covid:arg/57626a1add7bdbd1e608a80904a6bf12b540561b named entity 'tests' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'IgG/IgM' named entity 'CLIA' named entity 'immunoassays' named entity 'antibodies' named entity 'immunoassays' named entity 'lateral flow' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'chemiluminescence' named entity 'gold standard' named entity 'lateral flow test' named entity 'CLIA' named entity '40 minutes' named entity 'antibodies' named entity 'infection control' named entity 'RT-qPCR' named entity 'antibodies' named entity 'CLIA' named entity 'epidemic' named entity 'Serological testing' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'COVID-19 outbreak' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'antibodies' named entity 'immunoassays' named entity 'statistically significant' named entity 'retrospective study' named entity '2, 3' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics' named entity 'humoral response' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'Immunoassays' named entity 'immunoassays' named entity 'IgA' named entity 'World Health Organization' named entity 'PPV' named entity 'ELISA assay' named entity 'epidemic' named entity 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern' named entity 'CLIA' named entity 'COVID' named entity 'NPV' named entity 'serological tests' named entity 'symptom' named entity 'symptom' named entity 'cross reactivity' named entity 'ROC curves' named entity 'false positive results' named entity 'PPV' named entity 'humoral responses' named entity 'exit strategies' named entity 'IgA' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'antibody titres' named entity 'China' named entity 'rapid tests' named entity 'CLIA'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software