Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32568413›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical virology2021

Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

Zu-Li Zhang, Yu-Lei Hou, De-Tao Li, Feng-Zeng Li

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Prevalence and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in the Spanish HIV Research Network Cohort.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Serological Evidence ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zu-Li ZhangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yu-Lei HouClinical Laboratories, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
De-Tao LiClinical Laboratories, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Feng-Zeng LiDepartment of Dermatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7448-6988
The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CN

Funding

The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University HLJJ2014-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The serological testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS-CoV-2, were selected for a meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.

Indexed as

Antibodies, ViralChromatography, AffinityCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MLuminescent MeasurementsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MantibodyCOVID-2019diagnostic efficacySARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32568413
PMCPMC7361902
OpenAlexW3036380671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.