SynthesisSystematic reviews2021
A systematic and meta-analysis review on the diagnostic accuracy of antibodies in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Auxiliary Screening COVID-19 by Serology.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Measuring Humoral Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review of Serological Assays.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Cost-Effective and Time-Saving Multiplex-Beads Immunoassay Method to Detect Humoral Immune Responses Against Respiratory Infections.Journal of immunology research · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances in Virus Biorecognition and Detection Techniques for the Surveillance and Prevention of Infectious Diseases.Biosensors · 2025Review
- The Impact and Evolution of COVID-19 on Liver Transplant Recipients Throughout the Pandemic "Waves" in a Single Center.Viruses · 2025Observational
- COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among healthcare workers during the Omicron period in the country of Georgia, January - June 2022.PloS one · 2025Article
- Early detection of tuberculosis: a systematic review.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2024Review
- SARS-Cov-2 Infection and Seroconversion Rates in Healthcare Providers Prior to COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout.Biological research for nursing · 2023Article
- Evaluation of ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests in comparison with WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 ab ELISA in Burkina Faso, West Africa.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Economical and Easily Obtainable Tools to Manually Develop Lateral Flow Immunoassay Strips.ACS omega · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in children worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- PepSeq: a fully in vitro platform for highly multiplexed serology using customizable DNA-barcoded peptide libraries.Nature protocols · 2023Review
- Peptide microarray analysis of in-silico predicted B-cell epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 sero-positive healthcare workers in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.Acta tropica · 2023Article
- Evaluation of an automated CRISPR-based diagnostic tool for rapid detection of COVID-19.Heliyon · 2023Article
- An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.AIMS microbiology · 2023Review
- How immune breakthroughs could slow disease progression and improve prognosis in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- New detection method of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies toward a point-of-care biosensor.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of four lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179112.
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.