Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587102›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody test results and subsequent risk of hospitalisation and death in 361,801 people.

Matthew Whitaker, Bethan Davies, Christina Atchison, Wendy Barclay, Deborah Ashby, Ara Darzi, Steven Riley, Graham Cooke, Christl A Donnelly, Marc Chadeau-Hyam and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew Whitaker *School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bethan Davies *School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-7641
Christina AtchisonSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8304-7389
Wendy BarclayNational Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3948-0895
Deborah AshbySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3146-7466
Ara DarziImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7989
Steven RileyMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Graham CookeImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6475-5056
Christl A DonnellySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2463
Marc Chadeau-HyamSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8341-5436
Paul ElliottSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. p.elliott@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7511-5684
Helen WardSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8238-5036
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBMRC Centre for Environment and HealthNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_20029Medical Research Council MC_PC_20049Medical Research Council MR/L01341X/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Medical Research Council MR/S019669/1Medical Research Council MR/X020258/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The value of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests for estimating individual disease risk is unclear. The REACT-2 study in England, UK, obtained self-administered SARS-CoV-2 LFIA test results from 361,801 adults in January-May 2021. Here, we link to routine data on subsequent hospitalisation (to September 2021), and death (to December 2021). Among those who had received one or more vaccines, a negative LFIA is associated with increased risk of hospitalisation with COVID-19 (HR: 2.73 [95% confidence interval: 1.15,6.48]), death (all-cause) (HR: 1.59, 95% CI:1.07, 2.37), and death with COVID-19 as underlying cause (20.6 [1.83,232]). For people designated at high risk from COVID-19, who had received one or more vaccines, there is an additional risk of all-cause mortality of 1.9 per 1000 for those testing antibody negative compared to positive. However, the LFIA does not provide substantial predictive information over and above that which is available from detailed sociodemographic and health-related variables. Nonetheless, this simple test provides a marker which could be a valuable addition to understanding population and individual-level risk.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 TestingEnglandHospitalizationHumansSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID37587102
PMCPMC10432566
OpenAlexW4385874358

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.