SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological study in healthcare workers and discordant results using seven different diagnostic methods

1Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The aim of the study was to access the SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) of a tertiary pediatric hospital after the first wave of the pandemic and to compare the results among seven commercially available antibody detection assays, including chemiluminescence (CMIA), electroluminescence (ECLIA), Εnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), and rapid immunochromatography (RIC). SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection was performed in serum samples of 1216 HCWs, using a reference CMIA assay and 8/1216 (0.66%) were detected positive. Positive serum samples were further tested with other assays; however, only one sample was positive by all tests. The rest 7 cases were negative with ECLIA and ELISA and gave discordant results with RIC test. Six months later, new serum samples of seropositive HCWs were analyzed with the same 7 tests, with inconsistent results again. Identification of reliable SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests is important to determine the actual number of past infections, the duration of antibodies, and guide public health decisions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tatsi, E. B., Dellis, C., Petridou, E., Banou, K., Zachariadou, L., Syriopoulou, V., & Michos, A. (2022). SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiological study in healthcare workers and discordant results using seven different diagnostic methods. Infection, 50(1), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01653-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free