SynthesisInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2021
Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serological assays during early infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 516 samples.
Synthesis in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Auxiliary screening COVID-19 by computed tomography.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence around the world: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2022Pooled it
- Auxiliary Screening COVID-19 by Serology.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serological assays during early infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 516 samples.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Pooled it
- Rational design and high-yield expression of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen for a sensitive and specific in-house ELISA.BMC biotechnology · 2026Article
- A calibration of nucleic acid (PCR) by antibody (IgG) tests in Germany: the course of SARS-CoV-2 infections estimated.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.AIMS microbiology · 2023Review
- The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Serological Testing Reveals the Hidden COVID-19 Burden among Health Care Workers Experiencing a SARS-CoV-2 Nosocomial Outbreak.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Deep learning and lung ultrasound for Covid-19 pneumonia detection and severity classification.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Applications of laboratory findings in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of COVID-19.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Properties of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing to diagnose acute infection or determine population seroprevalence relies on understanding assay accuracy during early infection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of serological testing in COVID-19 by providing summary sensitivity and specificity estimates with time from symptom onset.
methodsA systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed was performed up to May 13, 2020. All English language, original peer-reviewed publications reporting the diagnostic performance of serological testing vis-à-vis virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.
resultsOur search yielded 599 unique publications. A total of 39 publications reporting 11 516 samples from 8872 human participants met eligibility criteria for inclusion in our study. Pooled percentages of IgM and IgG seroconversion by Day 7, 14, 21, 28 and after Day 28 were 37.5%, 73.3%, 81.3%, 72.3% and 73.3%, and 35.4%, 80.6%, 93.3%, 84.4% and 98.9%, respectively. By Day 21, summary estimate of IgM sensitivity was 0.872 (95% CI: 0.784-0.928) and specificity 0.973 (95% CI: 0.938-0.988), while IgG sensitivity was 0.913 (95% CI: 0.823-0.959) and specificity 0.960 (95% CI: 0.919-0.980). On meta-regression, IgM and IgG test accuracy was significantly higher at Day 14 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) compared to other methods.
conclusionsSerological assays offer imperfect sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Estimates of population seroprevalence during or shortly after an outbreak will need to adjust for the delay between infection, symptom onset and seroconversion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.