Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039423›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

A systematic and meta-analysis review on the diagnostic accuracy of antibodies in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19.

Arthur Vengesai, Herald Midzi, Maritha Kasambala, Hamlet Mutandadzi, Tariro L Mduluza-Jokonya, Simbarashe Rusakaniko, Francisca Mutapi, Thajasvarie Naicker, Takafira Mduluza

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Auxiliary Screening COVID-19 by Serology.Frontiers in public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. New detection method of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies toward a point-of-care biosensor.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Arthur VengesaiDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe. arthurvengesai@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7629-6843
Herald MidziDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Maritha KasambalaDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Hamlet MutandadziCollege of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Box A178 Mazowe Street Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Tariro L Mduluza-JokonyaDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Simbarashe RusakanikoCollege of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Box A178 Mazowe Street Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Francisca MutapiInstitute for Immunology and Infection Research and Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, Ashworth Laboratories, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, Charlotte Auerbach Rd, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK.
Thajasvarie NaickerOptics and Imaging, Doris Duke Medical Research Institute, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Takafira MduluzaDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
University of Zimbabwe · ZWCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution · GBUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Antibodies, ViralHumansImmunoglobulin GSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GCOVID-19IgGIgMrRT-PCRSARS-CoV2SensitivitySerologySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID34039423
PMCPMC8152206
OpenAlexW3115976915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.