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.

Estimates of sensitivity and specificity of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies using a Bayesian latent class model approach

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

Evaluation of diagnostic test procedures for SARS-CoV-2 using latent class models: comparison of antigen test kits and sampling for PCR testing based on Danish national data registries

Bayesian Estimation of the Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 serology: Validation of high-throughput chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platforms and a field study in British Columbia

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

Estimating SARS-CoV-2 infection probabilities with serological data and a Bayesian mixture model

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

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

Development, Validation, and Utilization of a Luminex-Based SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex Serology Assay

A novel Bayesian Latent Class Model (BLCM) evaluates multiple continuous and binary tests: A case study for Brucella abortus in dairy cattle

Bayesian Estimation of the Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

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

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

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

Clinical Utility of a Highly Sensitive Lateral Flow Immunoassay as determined by Titer Analysis for the Detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies at the Point-of-Care

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

Analysis of Serological Biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Convalescent Samples From Severe, Moderate and Mild COVID-19 Cases

Estimation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Assays for Screening Antibodies to HIV: A Comparison Between the Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches

A machine learning model for predicting serum neutralizing activity against Omicron SARS-CoV-2 BA.2 and BA.4/5 sublineages in the general population

SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoassays in a predominantly vaccinated population: Performances and qualitative agreements obtained with two analytical approaches and four immunoassays