About: Evaluation of the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological tools and their positioning in COVID-19 diagnostic strategies

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

About: Evaluation of the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological tools and their positioning in COVID-19 diagnostic strategies 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
title	Evaluation of the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological tools and their positioning in COVID-19 diagnostic strategies
Creator	Fafi-Kremer, Samira Schneider, Collange, Olivier Gallais, Floriane Meziani, Ferhat »more»
source	BioRxiv
abstract	Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial for successful outbreak containment. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR. Additional diagnostic methods enabling the detection of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection would be highly beneficial to ensure the timely diagnosis of all infected and recovered patients. Here, we investigated several serological tools, i.e., two immunochromatographic lateral flow assays (LFA-1 (Biosynex COVID-19 BSS) and LFA-2 (COVID-19 Sign IgM/IgG)) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) detecting IgA (ELISA-1 Euroimmun), IgM (ELISA-2 EDI) and/or IgG (ELISA-1 and ELISA-2) based on well-characterized panels of serum samples from patients and healthcare workers with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and from SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. A total of 272 serum samples were used, including 62 serum samples from hospitalized patients (panel 1 and panel 3), 143 serum samples from healthcare workers (panel 2) diagnosed with COVID-19 and 67 serum samples from negative controls. Diagnostic performances of each assay were assessed according to days after symptom onset (dso) and the antigenic format used by manufacturers. We found overall sensitivities ranging from 69% to 93% on panels 1 and 2 and specificities ranging from 83% to 98%. The clinical sensitivity varied greatly according to the panel tested and the dso. The assays we tested showed poor mutual agreement. A thorough selection of serological assays for the detection of ongoing or past infections is advisable.
has issue date	2020-06-17(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1101/2020.06.16.156166
has license	biorxiv
sha1sum (hex)	a948b72a6702f8fc925946d2ac8ec73c5d3cf688
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.16.156166
resource representing a document's title	Evaluation of the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological tools and their positioning in COVID-19 diagnostic strategies
schema:publication	bioRxiv
resource representing a document's body	covid:a948b72a6702f8fc925946d2ac8ec73c5d3cf688#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'Evaluation' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'infection' »more»

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