Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.

Eligibility criteria and data analysis

Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.

Results

5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).

Conclusion

Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

SUBMITTER: Lisboa Bastos M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7327913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1 2020 to September 2 2022. We included studies that measured the sensitivity, specificity or both qualities of a COVID-19 serological test and a reference standard of a viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed by using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The primary outcomes included overall sensitivity and specificity, as stratified by the methods of serological testing [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)] and immunoglobulin classes (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within the subgroups, as defined by study or participant characteristics, which included the time from the onset of symptoms, testing via commercial kits or an in-house assay, antigen target, clinical setting, serological kit as the index test and the type of specimen for the RT-PCR reference test.ResultsEight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five references were identified and 169 studies included. Overall, we judged the risk of bias to be high in 47.9 % (81/169) of the studies, and a low risk of applicability concerns was found in 100% (169/169) of the studies. For each method of testing, the pooled sensitivity of the ELISAs ranged from 81 to 82%, with sensitivities ranging from 69 to 70% for the LFIAs and 77% to 79% for the CLIAs. Among the evaluated tests, IgG (80-81%)-based tests exhibited better sensitivities than IgM-based tests (66-68%). IgG/IgM-based CLIA had the highest sensitivity [87% (86-88%)]. All of the tests displayed high specificity (97-98%). Heterogeneity was observed in all of the analyses. The detection of nucleocapsid protein (77-80%) as the antigen target was found to offer higher sensitivity results than surface protein detection (66-68%). Sensitivity was higher in the in-house assays (78-79%) than in the commercial kits (47-48%).ConclusionAmong the evaluated tests, ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity than did the LFIA. IgG-based tests had higher sensitivity than IgM-based tests, and combined IgG/IgM test-based CLIA tests had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The type of sample, serological kit and timing of use of the specific tests were associated with the diagnostic accuracy. Due to the limitations of the serological tests, other techniques should be quickly approved to provide guidance for the correct diagnosis of COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundSerological testing based on different antibody types are an alternative method being used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 and has the potential of having higher diagnostic accuracy compared to the current gold standard rRT-PCR. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of IgG and IgM based point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), fluorescence enzyme-linked immunoassay (FIA) and ELISA systems that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens.MethodA systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Medline complete and MedRxiv. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were performed by two authors independently. QUADAS-2 checklist tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve model were performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the serological tests. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to explore the heterogeneity.ResultsThe pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 17), IgM (n = 16) and IgG-IgM (n = 24) based LFIA tests were 0.5856, 0.4637 and 0.6886, respectively compared to rRT-PCR method. The pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 9) and IgM (n = 10) based CLIA tests were 0.9311 and 0.8516, respectively compared to rRT-PCR. The pooled sensitivity the IgG (n = 10), IgM (n = 11) and IgG-IgM (n = 5) based ELISA tests were 0.8292, 0.8388 and 0.8531 respectively compared to rRT-PCR. All tests displayed high specificities ranging from 0.9693 to 0.9991. Amongst the evaluated tests, IgG based CLIA expressed the highest sensitivity signifying its accurate detection of the largest proportion of infections identified by rRT-PCR. ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity compared to LFIA. IgG based tests performed better compared to IgM except for the ELISA.ConclusionsWe report that IgG-IgM based ELISA tests have the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type independently. Given the poor performances of the current LFIA devices, there is a need for more research on the development of highly sensitivity and specific POC LFIA that are adequate for most individual patient applications and attractive for large sero-prevalence studies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179112.

Project description:Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein are inexpensive, faster and easy to use alternative of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) for diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs (sensitivity and specificity) against reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference standard. The study population comprised of people living in LMICs irrespective of age and gender, who had undergone testing for COVID-19. We included peer reviewed prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as well as non-randomized experimental studies which addressed the review question. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies published between 1 January, 2020 and 15 August, 2021. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of studies. The analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and R software 4.0.2. From the total of 12 diagnostic accuracy studies with 4,817 study participants, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 78.2% and 99.5% respectively. Sensitivity was marginally higher in subgroup analysis based on studies with low risk of bias and applicability concerns (78.9%) and studies using SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (79.4%). However, an inverse relation between cycle threshold (Ct) and sensitivity of Ag-RDT was not seen. The review demonstrated pooled sensitivity value approaching the minimum performance requirement for diagnosis of COVID-19 by WHO with specificity value meeting the specified requirement. Ag-RDTs, therefore have the potential to be used as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low resource settings where RT-PCR might not be readily accessible. However, false negative results need to be interpreted with caution.