Comparative analysis of three point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: data from 100 healthcare workers in Brazil

  1. Danielle Dias Conte
  2. Joseane Mayara Almeida Carvalho
  3. Luciano Kleber de Souza Luna
  4. Klinger Soares Faíco-Filho
  5. Ana Helena Perosa
  6. Nancy Bellei

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s42770-021-00498-z
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.11.20229914v3 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.11.20229914v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.11.20229914: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Three commercial POC LFIAs for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM were tested: 1) COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), 2) Diagnostic kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2
    anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), 2
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    On the other hand, a limitation of the study was the impossibility of follow up on each HCW to observe possible variations in the detection of IgM and IgG over time, or to expand the study to include hospitalized patients or low-income individuals from the general community.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.11.20229914v1 on medRxiv