Use of dried blood spot samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using the Roche Elecsys ® high throughput immunoassay

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215228: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingThose performing the index tests were blind to the reference test results.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Eluates were aspirated and transferred to false bottom tubes (Roche Diagnostics) and 12 μL tested with the Roche Elecsys ® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay run on the Roche e801 analyzer.
    Anti-SARS-CoV-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:
    This study has several important limitations. Firstly, DBS has only been tested on a relatively small sample set, only 18 of which were positive on the reference standard, and none of whom had a previous positive PCR test. Secondly, sensitivity and specificity estimates of the index test were based on cut-offs derived from the data, and so should be considered exploratory. Thirdly, the sensitivity of the test depends on the distribution of antibody concentrations in the target population; here, we only studied one population of key workers. If other cohorts are studied in which antibody concentrations have declined compared with the one we studied, DBS will perform worse than we observe here. Fourthly, we assessed samples taken by trained phlebotomist. Variation in performance was observed between phlebotomists (and presumably would also occur between self-taken samples); as such, usability studies to quantify the extent of this variation would be essential to understand how the tests perform when self-administered by the target population. The key problem we have identified is lack of sensitivity. However, in populations with large amounts of antibody, such as individuals with more severe disease, or when very sensitivity assays are used, the different limits of detection of DBS vs. plasma samples may not translate into lower sensitivity. This may have occurred in the case of Morley et al, who report DBS performance to be comparable to matched serum samples, with a sensitivi...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    ISRCTN56609224NANA


    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.