Abstract
Serology-based tests have become a key public health element in the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the degree of herd immunity that has been achieved in the population. These tests differ between one another in several ways. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of currently available SARS-CoV-2 serological tests, and assessed their real-world performance under scenarios of varying proportion of infected individuals. We included independent studies that specified the antigen used for antibody detection and used quantitative methods. We identified nine independent studies, of which six were based on commercial ELISA or CMIA/CLIA assays, and three on in-house tests. Test sensitivity ranged from 68% to 93% for IgM, from 65% to 100% for IgG, and from 83% to 98% for total antibodies. Random-effects models yielded a summary sensitivity of 82% (95%CI 75–88%) for IgM, and 85% for both IgG (95%CI 73–93%) and total antibodies (95%CI 74–94%). Specificity was very high for most tests, and its pooled estimate was 98% (95%CI 92–100%) for IgM and 99% (95%CI 98–100%) for both IgG and total antibodies. The heterogeneity of sensitivity and specificity across tests was generally high (I2>50%). In populations with a low prevalence (≤5%) of seroconverted individuals, the positive predictive value would be ≤88% for most assays, except those reporting perfect specificity. Our data suggest that the use of serological tests for large-scale prevalence surveys (or to grant “immunity passports”) are currently only justified in hard-hit regions, while they should be used with caution elsewhere.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No 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All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 systematic review and meta-analysis, all the data is publically available to researchers
