SynthesisInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2025
An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.
Synthesis in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared the diagnostic accuracy of seven different commercial serological assays for COVID-19, using RT-PCR as the gold standard, through meta-analysis and indirect comparison.
methodsFifty-seven studies, published from November 2019 to June 2024, were included. The diagnostic performance of IgA, IgG, and total antibody assays for SARS-CoV-2 was assessed. The netmeta, rjags, and gemtc packages in R software were used for adjusted indirect comparison to calculate the relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR).
resultsThe pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 542.81, for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N was 1022.34, for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total was 1701.56, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA was 45.91, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-IgG was 190.45, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-IgG was 82.63, and for LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG was 178.73. The pooled DOR for IgG, IgA, and total antibody assays was 241.43, 45.91, and 1124.48. The pooled DOR for the antinucleocapsid antigen (anti-N) was 604.29; for the antidomain of viral spike protein (anti-S1) and the antirecombinant S1 and S2 (anti-S1/S2) antigens, the pooled DORs were 119.88 and 178.73. ECLIA and CMIA methods had superior diagnostic performance compared with CLIA and ELISA, with no significant difference between ECLIA and CMIA. Total antibody assays showed the highest accuracy, followed by IgG, with IgA performing least effectively.
conclusionsElecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total and N assays had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The diagnostic efficacy of the anti-N total, IgG antibodies was statistically significantly higher than that of anti-S IgG and IgA antibodies for COVID-19.
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.