Abstract:Abstract Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. Eligibility criteria and data analysis Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. Results 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). Conclusion Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Comparison of Serologic Response of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Using 8 Immunoassays

Serological differentiation between COVID-19 and SARS infections

Comprehensive evaluation of eight commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays

Meta-Analysis Of Diagnostic Performance Of Serology Tests For Covid-19: Impact Of Assay Design And Post-Symptom-Onset Intervals

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing

Serological testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study

Examination of SARS-CoV-2 serological test results from multiple commercial and laboratory platforms with an in-house serum panel

Evaluation of five immunoassays and one lateral flow immunochromatography for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection

Comparative Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Assays with Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests shows significant variability in performance across different years of infection and between the tests

Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19

Performance verification of anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detection by using four chemiluminescence immunoassay systems

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

Evaluation of serological tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: implementation in assessing post vaccination status

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting

Comparison of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG immuno-assays in RT-PCR negative patients with suspect CT findings

Clinical Evaluation of a COVID-19 Antibody Lateral Flow Assay using Point of Care Samples

Performance Analysis of Serodiagnostic Tests to Characterize the Incline and Decline of the Individual Humoral Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Diagnostic Management

Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Performance of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM Tests Using an Automated Chemiluminescent Assay

Multicentric evaluation of sensitivity of eight commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and their correlation to virus neutralization titers in seropositive subjects