Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36428889›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Fuzzy-Based PROMETHEE Method for Performance Ranking of SARS-CoV-2 IgM Antibody Tests.

Ayse Arikan, Tamer Sanlidag, Murat Sayan, Berna Uzun, Dilber Uzun Ozsahin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ayse ArikanDESAM Research Institute, Near East University, TRNC Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, Turkey.
Tamer SanlidagDESAM Research Institute, Near East University, TRNC Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, Turkey.
Murat SayanDESAM Research Institute, Near East University, TRNC Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-4374-7193
Berna UzunDepartment of Statistics, Carlos III Madrid University, 28903 Getafe, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6828-2185
Dilber Uzun OzsahinDepartment of Medical Diagnostic Imaging, College of Health Sciences, Sharjah University, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibody tests, widely used as a complementary approach to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in identifying COVID-19 cases, are used to measure antibodies developed for COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the different parameters of the FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibody tests and to rank them according to their performance levels. In the study, we involved 27 antibody tests, and the analyzes were performed using the fuzzy preference ranking organization method for the enrichment evaluation model, a multi-criteria decision-making model. While criteria such as analytical sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were evaluated in the study, the ranking was reported by determining the importance levels of the criteria. According to our evaluation, Innovita 2019-nCoV Ab Test (colloidal gold) was at the top of the ranking. While Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test and Assure COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Tester ranked second and third on the list, the InBios-SCoV 2 Detect Ig M ELISA Rapid Test Kit was determined as the least preferable. The fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation, which has been applied to many fields, can help decision-makers choose the appropriate antibody test for managing COVID-19 in controlling the global pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19fuzzy logicIgMMCDMPROMETHEESARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36428889
PMCPMC9689080

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.