Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
1 "SARS-CoV-2"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
More +
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Original article
Performance comparison between Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays
Seri Jeong, Yoo Rha Hong, Hyunyong Hwang
Kosin Med J. 2022;37(2):154-162.   Published online June 27, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.22.114
  • 5,012 View
  • 48 Download
  • 4 Citations
Abstract PDFPubReader   
Background
Although serological severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests from several manufacturers have been introduced in South Korea and some are commercially available, the performance of these test kits has not yet been sufficiently validated. Therefore, we compared the performance of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV2) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (ACOV2S) and Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) serological tests in this study.
Methods
A total of 186 patient samples were used. For each test, we analyzed the positive rate of serological antibody tests, precision, linearity, and agreement among the four assays.
Results
The positive rates of COV2T, sCOVG, and ACOV2S were high (81.7%–89.2%) in total, with those for ACOV2S being the highest, while those of ACOV2 were as low as 44.6%. This may be related to the high completion rate of vaccination in Korea. The repeatability and within-laboratory coefficients of variation were within the claimed allowable imprecision; however, further research is needed to establish an allowable imprecision at low concentrations. COV2T showed a linear fit, whereas sCOVG and ACOV2S were appropriately modeled with a nonlinear fit. Good agreement was found among COV2T, sCOVG, and ACOV2S; however, the agreement between ACOV2 and any one of the other methods was poor.
Conclusions
Considering the different antigens used in serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays, the performance of the tested assays is thought to show no significant difference for the qualitative detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Comparative evaluation of in-house ELISA and two commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
    Dabesa Gobena, Esayas Kebede Gudina, Tizta Tilahun Degfie, Tsinuel Girma, Getu Gebre, Alemseged Abdissa, Fikadu G. Tafesse, Tesfaye Gelanew, Zeleke Mekonnen
    Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparative evaluation of two automated immunoassays for serum thyroglobulin quantification
    Kyoung Ho Roh, Hyunyong Hwang
    Kosin Medical Journal.2025; 40(3): 213.     CrossRef
  • Comparative analysis of Access PCT and Elecsys BRAHMS PCT assays for procalcitonin measurements
    Hyunji Choi, Sang-Shin Lee, Hyunyong Hwang
    Kosin Medical Journal.2024; 39(4): 272.     CrossRef
  • Evaluation of automated calibration and quality control processes using the Aptio total laboratory automation system
    Namhee Kim, Yein Kim, Jeongeun Park, Jungsoo Choi, Hyunyong Hwang
    Kosin Medical Journal.2022; 37(4): 342.     CrossRef
KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal
© Kosin University College of Medicine.
TOP