Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis

Panagiota I Kontou, Georgia G Braliou, Niki L Dimou, Georgios Nikolopoulos, View ORCID ProfilePantelis G Bagos
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.20074914
Panagiota I Kontou
1Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georgia G Braliou
1Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niki L Dimou
2International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georgios Nikolopoulos
3Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pantelis G Bagos
1Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pantelis G Bagos
  • For correspondence: pbagos@compgen.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Summary

Background With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an imperative need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies measuring the accuracy of the various tests are usually underpowered and inconsistent, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed.

Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the literature search in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. For the statistical analysis we used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA) and the point-of-care (POC) Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA) that are based on immunochromatography.

Findings In total, we identified 38 eligible studies that include data from 7,848 individuals. The analyses showed that tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones, and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. 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 alone. All methods yielded high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods performed better in terms of sensitivity (90-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 86%.

Interpretation ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. POC tests (LFIA), that are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies show high specificity but lower sensitivity and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

Funding None

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

There is no external funding

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

This is a meta-analysis of publicly available data.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 25, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis
Panagiota I Kontou, Georgia G Braliou, Niki L Dimou, Georgios Nikolopoulos, Pantelis G Bagos
medRxiv 2020.04.22.20074914; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.20074914
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis
Panagiota I Kontou, Georgia G Braliou, Niki L Dimou, Georgios Nikolopoulos, Pantelis G Bagos
medRxiv 2020.04.22.20074914; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.20074914

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (230)
  • Allergy and Immunology (507)
  • Anesthesia (111)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1264)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (207)
  • Dermatology (148)
  • Emergency Medicine (283)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (538)
  • Epidemiology (10056)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (502)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2486)
  • Geriatric Medicine (240)
  • Health Economics (482)
  • Health Informatics (1653)
  • Health Policy (757)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (638)
  • Hematology (250)
  • HIV/AIDS (538)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11896)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (627)
  • Medical Education (255)
  • Medical Ethics (75)
  • Nephrology (269)
  • Neurology (2304)
  • Nursing (140)
  • Nutrition (354)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (458)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (537)
  • Oncology (1259)
  • Ophthalmology (377)
  • Orthopedics (134)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (158)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (326)
  • Pediatrics (737)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (315)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2295)
  • Public and Global Health (4850)
  • Radiology and Imaging (846)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (493)
  • Respiratory Medicine (657)
  • Rheumatology (289)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (241)
  • Sports Medicine (228)
  • Surgery (273)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (131)
  • Urology (100)