Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,771

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM‐IgG combined antibody test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosis

Open access
Li, Zhengtu, Yi, Yongxiang, Luo, Xiaomei, Xiong, Nian, Liu, Yang, Li, Shaoqiang, Sun, Ruilin, Wang, Yanqun, Hu, Bicheng, Chen, Wei, Zhang, Yongchen, Wang, Jing, Huang, Baofu, Lin, Ye, Yang, Jiasheng, Cai, Wensheng, Wang, Xuefeng, Cheng, Jing, Chen, Zhiqiang, Sun, Kangjun, Pan, Weimin, Zhan, Zhifei, Chen, Liyan, Ye, Feng·2020·Journal of Medical Virology

Abstract

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) quickly spread all over China and to more than 20 other countries. Although the virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus [SARS‐Cov‐2]) nucleic acid real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test has become the standard method for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, these real‐time PCR test kits have many limitations. In addition, high false‐negative rates were reported. There is an urgent need for an accurate and rapid test method to quickly identify a large number of infected patients and asymptomatic carriers to prevent virus transmission and assure timely treatment of patients. We have developed a rapid and simple point‐of‐care lateral flow immunoassay that can detect immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies simultaneously against SARS‐CoV‐2 virus in human blood within 15 minutes which can detect patients at different infection stages. With this test kit, we carried out clinical studies to validate its clinical efficacy uses. The clinical detection sensitivity and specificity of this test were measured using blood samples collected from 397 PCR confirmed COVID‐19 patients and 128 negative patients at eight different clinical sites. The overall testing sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%. In addition, we evaluated clinical diagnosis results obtained from different types of venous and fingerstick blood samples. The results indicated great detection consistency among samples from fingerstick blood, serum and plasma of venous blood. The IgM‐IgG combined assay has better utility and sensitivity compared with a single IgM or IgG test. It can be used for the rapid screening of SARS‐CoV‐2 carriers, symptomatic or asymptomatic, in hospitals, clinics, and test laboratories.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmv.25727

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 1,771

Metadata

Authors
Li, Z., Yi, Y., Luo, X., Xiong, N., Liu, Y., Li, S., Sun, R., Wang, Y., Hu, B., Chen, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Huang, B., Lin, Y., Yang, J., Cai, W., Wang, X., Cheng, J., Chen, Z., Sun, K., Pan, W., Zhan, Z., Chen, L., & Ye, F.
Venue
Journal of Medical Virology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-13
Volume
92
Issue
9
Pages
1518-1524
ISSN
  • 0146-6615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9071
OpenAlex
W3007104924
Cited by
1,771
References
17
FWCI
49.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM‐IgG combined antibody test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmv.25727
The paper
Li, Z., Yi, Y., Luo, X., Xiong, N., Liu, Y., Li, S., Sun, R., Wang, Y., Hu, B., Chen, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Huang, B., Lin, Y., Yang, J., Cai, W., Wang, X., Cheng, J., Chen, Z., . . . Ye, F. (2020). Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM‐IgG combined antibody test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosis. Journal of Medical Virology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25727

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.