See the published version of this article at Biology Direct.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Serological Determinants of COVID-19
Annalisa Noce
University of Rome Tor Vergata: Universita degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-3730
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published version at Biology Direct.
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection spreaded rapidly worldwide, as far as it has become a global pandemic. Therefore, the introduction of serological tests useful for the determination of IgM and IgG antibodies, it has become the main diagnostic tool, useful for tracking the spread of the virus and consequently its containment. In our study we compared point of care test (POCT) lateral flow immunoassay (FIA) vs automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), in order to assess their specificity and sensibility against COVID-19 antibodies detection.
Results: We find that different specificities and sensitivities for IgG and IgM tests. Notably IgM POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) has a low sensitivity (0.526), while POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) test has a much higher sensitivity (0.937); further, with respect of IgG, FIA and CLIA could arguably provide the same information.
Conclusions: FIA method could be helpful in assessing in short time, the possible contagiousness of subjects that for work reasons cannot guarantee “social distancing”.
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, point of care, lateral flow immunoassay, automated chemiluminescent immunoassay, serological tests, laboratory detection
Figure 1
Figure 2
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 1
Posted 22 Sep, 2020
Published
On 02 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Revision
On 24 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 22 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 18 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Sep, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Sep, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Internal Medicine
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Biology Direct. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Serological Determinants of COVID-19
Annalisa Noce
University of Rome Tor Vergata: Universita degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-3730
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 1
Posted 22 Sep, 2020
Published
On 02 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Revision
On 24 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 22 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 18 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Sep, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Sep, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Internal Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published version at Biology Direct.
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection spreaded rapidly worldwide, as far as it has become a global pandemic. Therefore, the introduction of serological tests useful for the determination of IgM and IgG antibodies, it has become the main diagnostic tool, useful for tracking the spread of the virus and consequently its containment. In our study we compared point of care test (POCT) lateral flow immunoassay (FIA) vs automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), in order to assess their specificity and sensibility against COVID-19 antibodies detection.
Results: We find that different specificities and sensitivities for IgG and IgM tests. Notably IgM POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) has a low sensitivity (0.526), while POCT FIA method vs CLIA method (gold standard) test has a much higher sensitivity (0.937); further, with respect of IgG, FIA and CLIA could arguably provide the same information.
Conclusions: FIA method could be helpful in assessing in short time, the possible contagiousness of subjects that for work reasons cannot guarantee “social distancing”.
Figure 1
Figure 2