Accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Аннотация: Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods PubMed, 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. Results Eight 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%). Conclusion Among 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.
Год издания: 2022
Авторы: Xiaoyan Zheng, Rui hua Duan, Fen Gong, Xiaojing Wei, Yu Dong, Rouhao Chen, Ming Liang, Chunzhi Tang, Liming Lu
Издательство: Frontiers Media
Источник: Frontiers in Public Health
Ключевые слова: SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research, COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Другие ссылки: Frontiers in Public Health (PDF)
Frontiers in Public Health (HTML)
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (HTML)
PubMed Central (HTML)
PubMed (HTML)
Frontiers in Public Health (HTML)
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (HTML)
PubMed Central (HTML)
PubMed (HTML)
Открытый доступ: gold
Том: 10