Current best evidence for clinical care (more info)
The aims of this rapid systematic review are to synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults and how antibodies correlate with protective immunity. Given the rapidly evolving evidence within this field, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program will maintain this report as a living review with planned ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal. We will provide regular report updates as additional evidence becomes available, modifying the scope of the review as new directions in SARS-CoV-2 immunity research emerge. This review was conducted in coordination with the American College of Physicians (ACP) as part of AHRQ’s standing work to provide health professional organizations and systems with evidence reviews to support the development of clinical guidance for their clinician members.
|Discipline / Specialty Area||Score|
|Allergy and Immunology||
|Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)||
|General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)||
The format of a 'living review' adds confidence in addressing the topic. It seems we are not far from having definitive answers.
This is helpful both to allergists and general physicians.
Timely and well done evidence review on this important topic.
Some widely known information and much that needs to be elucidated. Right now, this information is not sufficiently known to warrant putting this review in front of clinicians.
As a Public Health doc, this is very reassuring. We have seen a failure rate in very few immunized people (one of our RNs post 2 Moderna vaccines) and the symptoms were mild and short-lived; however, she tested positive on PCR, which is similar to what the article states. Good review.
This has the potential to be useful as data accumulate, but there is little new information here. Also, they don`t seem to distinguish the epitope(s) of the virus the antibodies are directed against, which is starting to seem important.
This is very useful for internists, who will encounter some reinfections, especially with new variants forming, and are asked for advice from patients about behavior following infection.
Useful summary document but will probably not have high potential to influence clinical care.
This paper might represent a significant advancement in the field.