Cited by 361SARS-CoV-2 detection and testingSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment

Open access
GeurtsvanKessel, Corine H., Okba, Nisreen M. A., Igloi, Zsofia, Bogers, Susanne, Embregts, Carmen W. E., Laksono, Brigitta M., Leijten, Lonneke, Rokx, Casper +8 more·2020·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The world is entering a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which there is an increasing call for reliable antibody testing. To support decision making on the deployment of serology for either population screening or diagnostics, we present a detailed comparison of serological COVID-19 assays. We show that among the selected assays there is a wide diversity in assay performance in different scenarios and when correlated to virus neutralizing antibodies. The Wantai ELISA detecting total immunoglobulins against the receptor binding domain of SARS CoV-2, has the best overall characteristics to detect functional antibodies in different stages and severity of disease, including the potential to set a cut-off indicating the presence of protective antibodies. The large variety of available serological assays requires proper assay validation before deciding on deployment of assays for specific applications.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-020-17317-y

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GeurtsvanKessel, C. H., Okba, N. M. A., Igloi, Z., Bogers, S., Embregts, C. W. E., Laksono, B. M., Leijten, L., Rokx, C., Rijnders, B., Rahamat-Langendoen, J., van den Akker, J. P. C., van Kampen, J. J. A., van der Eijk, A. A., van Binnendijk, R. S., Haagmans, B., & Koopmans, M.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
GeurtsvanKessel, Corine H.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-07-06
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
3436-3436
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039328844
Cited by
361
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 165 · 2020: 68
FWCI
10.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, serological assays, antibody detection, ELISA, receptor binding domain, virus-neutralizing antibodies, assay validation, diagnostic accuracy, exposure assessment, mass screening, disease severity
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Testing, Antibodies, Viral, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Humans, Luminescent Measurements, Neutralization Tests, Pneumonia, Viral, Sensitivity and Specificity, Serologic Tests, Coronavirus Infections, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Antibodies, Neutralizing, High-Throughput Screening Assays, Pandemics

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