Background Currently, more than 30,200,000 COVID-19 cases have been diagnosed in Germany alone. However, data regarding prevalence of COVID-19 in children, both in Germany and internationally, are sparse. We sought to evaluate the number of infected children by measuring IgG antibodies. Methods Oropharyngeal swabs were collected between December 2020 and August 2021 to measure SARS-CoV-2, and capillary blood for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (by rapid test NADAL® and filter paper test Euroimmun® ELISA); venous blood was taken for validation (Roche® ECLIA and recomLine Blot) in 365 German children aged 3–16 years from 30 schools and preschools. We used multiple serological tests because the filter paper test Euroimmun® ELISA performs better in terms of sensitivity and specificity than the rapid test NADAL®. The Roche® ECLIA test is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and the recomLine Blot test is used to rule out the possibility of infection by seasonal SARS-viruses and to test for specific SARS-CoV-2 proteins (NP, RBD and S1). In addition, one parent each (n = 336), and 4–5 teachers/caregivers (n = 90) per institution were tested for IgG antibodies from capillary blood samples. The total study duration was 4 months per child, including the first follow-up after 2 months and the second after 4 months. Results Of 364 children tested at baseline, 3.6% (n = 13) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using Euroimmun® ELISA. Seven children reported previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2; each of these was confirmed by the Roche® Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ECLIA (antibody to spike protein 1) test. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies persisted over a 4-month period, but levels decreased significantly (p = 0.004) within this timeframe. The median IgG values were 192.0 BAU/ml [127.2; 288.2], 123.6 BAU/ml [76.6; 187.7] and 89.9 BAU/ml [57.4; 144.2] at baseline, 2 months and 4 months after baseline, respectively. During the study period, no child tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by oropharyngeal swab. A total of 4.3% of all parents and 3.7% of teachers/caregivers tested positive for IgG antibodies by Euroimmun® ELISA at baseline. Conclusion We noted a rather low seroprevalence in children despite an under-reporting of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Measurement of IgG antibodies derived from capillary blood appears to be a valid tool to detect asymptomatic infections in children. However, no asymptomatic active infection was detected during the study period of 4 months in the whole cohort. Further data on SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are needed, especially in the group of <5-year-olds, as there is currently no licensed vaccine for this age group in Germany. The Robert Koch Institute’s Standing Commission on Vaccination (STIKO) recommended COVID-19 vaccination for 12–17 and 5–11 year olds in August 2021 and May 2022 respectively.

/pdf/longitudinal-change-in-sars-cov-2-seroprevalence-in-3-to-16-2du4etv1.pdf

Longitudinal change in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in 3-to 16-year-old children: The Augsburg Plus study

Introduction : Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which has infected many people all over the world. One of the best ways to lessen its spread is through early detection and diagnosis. Various serological tests are now being used as a surveillance tool in the detection of antibodies as a response to SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and performance of the available COVID-19 antibody tests authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Philippines that make use of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) and Lateral Flow Immunoassay (LFIA). Method : Complete published journal articles relevant to the diagnostic accuracy of the three antibody tests were collected using trusted medical journal search engines. The quality of journals was assessed using QUADAS-2 to determine the risk of bias and assess the applicability judgments of diagnostic accuracy studies. Forest plots were used to summarize the performance of LFIA, ELISA and CLIA according to their specificity and sensitivity in detecting various antibodies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were also done using bivariate random-effects models with its log-likelihood, a corresponding chi-square test statistic, and area under the summary Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve to see the potential heterogeneity in the data and to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the COVID-19 antibody tests. Results : Bivariate random-effects model and areas under the sROC curve were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antibody tests. The pooled sensitivity in detecting IgG based on CLIA, ELISA, and LFIA were 81.7%, 58.7%, and 74.3% respectively, with an overall of 72.0%. For IgM detection, LFIA has a higher pooled sensitivity of 69.6% than CLIA with 61.0%. Overall, the pooled sensitivity is 68.5%. In IgA detection, only ELISA based test was included with a pooled sensitivity of 84.8%. Lastly, pooled sensitivities for combined antibodies based on ELISA and LFIA were 89.0% and 81.6% respectively, with an overall of 82.5%. On the other hand, all tests excluding ELISA-IgA displayed high pooled specificities with a range of 94.0% to 100.0%. Diagnostic accuracies of the test in detecting IgG, IgM, and combined antibodies were found out to be almost perfect based on the computed area under the sROC with values of 0.973, 0.953, and 0.966, respectively. Conclusion : In this systematic review and meta-analysis, existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests for COVID-19 were found to be characterized by high risks of bias, consistency in the heterogeneity of sensitivities, and consistency in the homogeneity of high specificities except in IgA detection using ELISA. The bivariate random-effects models showed that there are no significant differences in terms of sensitivity among CLIA, ELISA and LFIA in detecting IgG, IgM, and combined antibodies at a 95% confidence interval. Nonetheless, CLIA, ELISA and LFIA were found to have excellent diagnostic accuracies in the detection of IgG, IgM and combined antibodies as reflected by their AUC values. Doi: 10.28991/SciMedJ-2021-0304-1 Full Text: PDF

/pdf/diagnostic-accuracy-of-covid-19-antibody-tests-authorized-by-1zpu8p83ss.pdf

Diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antibody tests authorized by FDA Philippines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Examination of disease biomarkers mostly performed on crude materials, such as serum, meets some obstacles, resulting from sample complexity and the wide range of concentrations and sizes of the components. Techniques currently used in clinical diagnostics are usually time-consuming and expensive. The more sensitive and portable devices are needed for early diagnostics. Chemical sensors are devices that convert chemical information into parameters suitable for fast and precise processing and measurement. Area covered We review the use of biosensors and their possible application in early diagnostics of some diseases like cancer or viral infections. We focus on different types of biorecognition and some technical modifications, lowering the limit of detection potentially attractive to medical practitioners. Expert opinion Among the new diagnostic strategies, the use of biosensors is of increasing interest. In these techniques, the capture ligand interacts with the analyte of interest. Measuring interactions between partners in real time by surface plasmon resonance yields valuable information about kinetics and affinity in a short time and without labels. Importantly, the tendency in such techniques is to make biosensor devices smaller and the test results apparent with the naked eye, so they can be used in point-of-care medicine.

Application of selected biosensor techniques in clinical diagnostics.

Background: New commercially available point-of-care (POC) immunodiagnostic tests are appearing, which may yield rapid results for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antibody detection tests compared to a validated laboratory-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and to investigate infections amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) after unprotected close contact to COVID-19 patients. Methods: Blood serum and whole blood of 130 participants were tested with NADAL® COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test and mo-screen 2019-NCOV coronavirus test against a validated ELISA test. Infection status was evaluated using real-time polymerase-chain-reaction. Results: Acute COVID-19 infection was detected in 2.4% of exposed HCWs. Antibody tests showed an overall frequency of IgG and IgM in 5.3%, with 1.6% asymptomatic infections. The NADAL® test showed a sensitivity (IgM/IgG) of 100% (100%/100%), a specificity (IgM/IgG) of 98.8% (97.6%/100 %), a PPV of 76.9% (57.1%/100%), an NPV of 100% (100%/100%), and a diagnostic accuracy of 98.8% (97.7%/100%). The mo-screen test had a sensitivity (IgM/IgG) of 90.9% (80%/100%), a specificity (IgM/IgG) of 98.8% (97.6%/100%), a PPV of 76.9% (57.1%/100%), an NPV of 99.6% (99.2%/100%), and a diagnostic accuracy of 98.5% (96.9%/100%). Conclusions: The frequency of COVID-19 infections in HCWs after unprotected close contact is higher than in the general population of a low-prevalence country. Both POC tests were useful for detecting IgG, but did not perform well for IgM, mainly due to false positive results.

/pdf/diagnostic-accuracy-of-two-commercially-available-rapid-5etlgkz4jo.pdf

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercially available rapid assays for detection of IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to ELISA in a low-prevalence population.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Michael Ecker

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercially available rapid assays for detection of IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to ELISA in a low-prevalence population.