ArticleWellcome open research2024
Comparative performance of the InBios SCoV-2 Detect
Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking the evidence on COVID-19 in Africa.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The InBios SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA (InBios) and the in-house KWTRP ELISA (KWTRP) have both been used in the estimation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Kenya. Whereas the latter has been validated extensively using local samples, the former has not. Such validation is important for informing the comparability of data across the sites and populations where seroprevalence has been reported. Methods: We compared the assays directly using pre-pandemic serum/plasma collected in 2018 from 454 blood donors and 173 malaria cross-sectional survey participants, designated gold standard negatives. As gold standard SARS-CoV-2 positive samples: we assayed serum/plasma from 159 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients and 166 vaccination-confirmed participants. Results: The overall agreement on correctly classified samples was >0.87 for both assays. The overall specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91) for InBios and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99) for KWTRP among the gold standard negative samples while the overall sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90- 0.95) for InBios and KWTRP ELISAs respectively, among the gold standard positive samples. In all, the positive predictive value for InBios was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) for KWTRP while the negative predictive value was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97- 0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) for InBios and KWTRP respectively. Conclusions: Overall, both assays showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to estimate SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in different populations in Kenya.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.