Abstract
Free full text
Diagnostic efficacy of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM test for COVID‐19: A meta‐analysis
Abstract
The serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID‐19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random‐effects model meta‐analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2, were selected for a meta‐analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79‐0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐0.99) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65‐0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93‐0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P>.05). These results showed that the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.
1. INTRODUCTION
The coronavirus, SARS‐CoV‐2, is now widely spreading over the world and has infected millions of people. It causes a low respiratory infection (COVID‐19) pandemic. In some patients, it may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome that contributes to most of the COVID‐19 deaths. As of 18 May 2020, nearly five million people around the world have been diagnosed with SARS‐CoV‐2, and more than 300000 people have died from serve COVID‐19. 1 Timely diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections and isolation of infected persons and close contacts remain priorities and challenges of epidemic prevention.
The diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections mainly depends on the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid (RNA) and SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin antibodies (IgM and/or IgG). 2 Detection of virus RNA by real‐time reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) is considered as the golden criteria of diagnosis. However, RNA molecular detection suffers from many limitations 3 : (a) It requires expensive equipment and trained technicians in a certified laboratory, (b) it usually takes more than 2 hours to generate results, and (c) it carries the risk of false‐negatives due to low viral loads in clinical specimens. 4 Serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM (has been used to diagnose illness, but its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. 5 This study aims to summarize the diagnostic efficacy of the anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM test in each study, the results of which can assist in the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study registration
This meta‐analysis was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020184771).
2.2. Search strategy and eligibility criteria
We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI (China), and Wanfang (China) databases and excluded duplicates with EndNote X9.0 software. The search terms used in PubMed were (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 OR Wuhan coronavirus OR Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus OR COVID19 virus OR COVID‐19 virus OR coronavirus disease 2019 virus OR SARS‐CoV‐2 OR SARS2 OR 2019‐nCoV OR 2019 novel coronavirus) AND (antibody OR IgG OR IgM OR immunoglobulin). The searches were limited to articles published in Chinese or English in 2020. To reduce literature omissions, we checked the reference lists of the included studies.
We defined the eligibility criteria as follows: (a) numbers of true‐positives (TP), false‐positives (FP), true‐negatives (TN), and false‐negatives (FN) were available, (b) RT‐PCR test for SARS‐CoV‐2 virus nucleic acids and anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and/or IgM test were performed. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analysis articles were excluded.
Two reviewers independently performed the literature search and screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer or by consensus. All the eligibility studies were selected for meta‐analysis. The steps of the literature search are shown in Figure S1.
2.3. Quality assessment and risk of bias
Two reviewers assess the quality of studies enrolled in this study using QUADAS‐2, a tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies, 6 to assess the risk of bias. We assessed statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using the I 2 statistic, Q test, and Deeks' test, respectively. Deeks' funnel plots were drawn to evaluate the risk of publication bias.
2.4. Data extraction and meta‐analysis
The two reviewers who performed the literature search also independently extracted the data from the enrolled studies using a predefined data extraction form. The variables extracted from the selected studies included author, blood collection time from symptom onset, type of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 (IgG or IgM), methods of antibody detection, TP, FP, TN, and FN.
2.5. Statistical analysis
We performed a meta‐analysis by the “meta4diag” package (version 2.0.8) in R soft (version 3.6.2) and “Midas” modules in the STATA statistical software (version 14.0). A bivariate random‐effects model was employed for estimating the pooled diagnostic performance measures and a 95% confidence interval (CI).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Search results
A total of 1613 articles were identified from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI (China), Wanfang (China), and other sources. After we removed duplicates and screened all the search records, 22 studies 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 meeting the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in this study for a meta‐analysis. As shown in Table 1, a total of 3767 individuals were included in this meta‐analysis, including 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2. Their age‐bracket and sex ratio were not available in each included study.
Table 1
No. | Author | Number (cases/controls) | Daysa | Study type | Cases | Controls | Method |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Dohla et al 7 | 22/27 | 19 (IQR: 15‐24) | Prospective | PCR+ | PCR− | GICA |
2 | Hoffman et al 8 | 28/125 | Range 9‐29 | Retrospective | PCR+ | Healthy persons | GICA |
3 | Infantino et al 9 | 30/63 | 12 (range 8‐17) | Retrospective | PCR+ | Patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 and healthy persons | CLIA |
4 | Jin et al 10 | 27/33 | 16 (IQR: 9‐20) | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | CLIA |
5 | Li et al 3 | 397/128 | Range 8‐33 | Retrospective | PCR+, clinical feathers | Patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 | GICA |
6 | Liu et al 11 | 214/100 | 15 (range 0‐55) | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | ELISA |
7 | Pan et al 12 | 86/22 | Range 0‐34 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | GICA |
8 | Qu et al 13 | 41/38 | Range 3‐43 | Retrospective | PCR+ | Patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 | CLIA |
9 | Shen et al 14 | 97/53 | Range 0‐28 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− and healthy persons | GICA |
10 | Spicuzza et al 15 | 23/14 | Range 3‐34 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | GICA |
11 | Xiang et al 16 | 90/60 | Range 13‐29 | Retrospective | PCR+ and clinical feathers | Healthy persons | ELISA |
12 | Bao et al 17 | 179/100 | 37 (range, 9‐62) | Retrospective | PCR+ | Healthy persons | GICA |
13 | Deng et al 18 | 32/44 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | GICA | |
14 | Li et al 19 | 116/134 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | CLIA | |
15 | Liang et al 21 | 236/59 | Retrospective | PCR+ | Healthy persons | GICA | |
16 | Li et al 20 | 25/60 | Convalescence | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | CLIA |
17 | Luo et al 22 | 101/54 | Retrospective | PCR+ and clinical feathers | PCR− | GICA | |
18 | Tang et al 23 | 113/27 | 25 (range, 3‐47) | Retrospective | PCR+ and clinical feathers | Patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 | CLIA |
19 | Xiong et al 24 | 97/100 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | CLIA and ELISA | |
20 | Xu et al 25 | 205/79 | Retrospective | PCR+ and clinical feathers | Patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 | CLIA | |
21 | Zhang et al 26 | 105/138 | Retrospective | PCR+ and clinical feathers | PCR− and healthy persons | GICA | |
22 | Zheng et al 27 | 25/20 | Retrospective | PCR+ | PCR− | CLIA and GICA |
Note: Only the first author of each study is given.
Abbreviations: PCR+, PCR positive; PCR−, PCR negative; GICA, gold immunochromatography assay; CLIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; IQR, interquartile range; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M.
3.2. Quality assessments
We evaluated the quality of the 22 included studies according to QUADAS‐2 guidelines. Bias in each study was assessed as “low risk of bias,” “high risk of bias,” and “unclear risk of bias.” As shown in Figure 1, 95.45% (21 of 22) for patient selection, 36.36% (8 of 22) for index test, 13.64% (3 of 22) for flow and timing, and 4.55% (1 of 22) for reference standard showed a high risk of bias. Subjects in most of the included studies (95.45%, 21 of 22) were composed of patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 without “difficult to diagnose” patients, which did not avoid case‐control design and inappropriate exclusions and contributed to the high risk of bias in terms of patient selection. For the index test, 36.36% (8 of 22) studies were classified as high risk of bias mainly because they were retrospective studies, and the IgG/IgM test results were interpreted with knowledge of the RT‐PCR results not meeting the “blinding” criteria. The risk of the reference standard and flow and time bias was relatively low. Some studies did not declare aspects related to study design (ie, intervals between serologic test and RT‐PCR), which limits the ability to conclude on study quality.
3.3. Heterogeneity
The P values of the Q test were all less than .01, accompanied by I 2>50%. The I 2 ranging from 69.85% to 93.52% in the evaluation of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and/or IgM showed the heterogeneity of the statistical significance.
3.4. Diagnostic performance
The result of this bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis is shown in Figure 2. The sensitivity and specificity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79‐0.90) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1.00) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65‐0.81) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00) for IgM, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79‐0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00) for IgG or IgM.
Summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curves were generated to indicate the overall diagnostic accuracy. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐0.99) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG, 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93‐0.97) for IgM, and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96‐0.99) for IgG or IgM (Figure 3). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | DOR (95% CI) | LRpos (95% CI) | LRneg (95% CI) | AUC (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IgG | 0.85 (0.79‐0.90) | 0.99 (0.98‐1.00) | 592.62 (226.79‐1634.34) | 88.32 (38.48‐229.57) | 0.15 (0.10‐0.22 | 0.99 (0.97‐0.99) |
IgM | 0.74 (0.65‐0.81) | 0.99 (0.97‐1.00) | 278.12 (76.02‐1029.37) | 71.41 (22.09‐259.48) | 0.27 (0.18‐0.36) | 0.95 (0.93‐0.97) |
IgG/IgM | 0.86 (0.79‐0.92) | 0.99 (0.97‐1.00) | 777.53 (161.26‐3478.47) | 104.14 (24.99‐456.71) | 0.14 (0.08‐0.22) | 0.98 (0.96‐0.99) |
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M; LRpos, positive likelihood ratio; LRneg, negative‐positive likelihood ratio.
3.5. Subgroup analyses
In the selected studies, the detection methods of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM included gold immunochromatography assay (GICA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We performed subgroup analyses among these three groups. The results showed that the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using ELISA were lower than those using GICA or CLIA. However, the meta‐regression analysis results showed that no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity were observed among these groups (P>.05) (Table 3). Additionally, the I 2 for the sensitivity of IgG, IgM, and IgG/IgM in the subgroup analyses were more than 50%. And the I 2 for the specificity of IgG using CLIA (0%) and IgG or IgM using GICA (23.78%) declined significantly.
Table 3
Antidody | Test method (n) | I 2 (%) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | P value | I 2 (%) | Specificity (95% CI) | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IgG | GICA (7) | 87.09 | 0.83 (0.73, 0.90) | .07 | 77.27 | 0.99 (0.96, 1.00) | .71 |
CLIA (8) | 93.16 | 0.90 (0.84, 0.95) | 0 | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) | |||
ELISA (3) | 0.69 (0.48, 0.85) | 0.99 (0.96, 1.00) | |||||
IgM | GICA (9) | 96.54 | 0.74 (0.60, 0.85) | .93 | 76.97 | 0.97 (0.93, 0.99) | 1.00 |
CLIA (9) | 81.24 | 0.74 (0.60, 0.85) | 63.67 | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) | |||
ELISA (2) | 0.71 (0.40, 0.91) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | |||||
IgG/IgM | GICA (8) | 85.30 | 0.84 (0.78, 0.90) | .06 | 23.78 | 0.95 (0.93, 0.98) | 1.00 |
CLIA (3) | 0.96 (0.91, 0.98) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | |||||
ELISA (2) | 0.69 (0.50, 0.85) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) |
Note: The P value was obtained comparing ELISA with GILA and CLIA.
Abbreviations: CLIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; GICA, gold immunochromatography assay; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M.
3.6. Influence analysis
As shown in Figure S2, we generated crosshair plots and performed influence analysis to identify outliers. Two study 3 , 11 in the meta‐analysis of IgG were identified as outliers. After excluding the outliers, the overall pooled sensitivity of IgG slightly increased from 0.85 to 0.87, specificity and AUC did not change. Moreover, the I 2 for sensitivity and specificity slightly declined from 93.52% and 69.85% to 90.53% and 66.63%, respectively. These results suggested that the outliers contributed a little heterogeneity in this meta‐analysis.
3.7. Publication bias
Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate the publication bias of the included studies. The results indicated that there was no obvious publication bias in this meta‐analysis (P>.05) (Figure S3).
4. DISCUSSION
Serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM has been widely used to diagnose SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. However, the diagnostic efficacy of the serum antibody test reported in the earlier studies confused the clinician. The sensitivities of IgG and IgM ranged from 0.61 27 and 0.34 17 to 0.93 13 and 0.91, 8 respectively. And, there was no significant difference in the specificities of IgG and IgM among the studies. Therefore, a broad summary analysis of the diagnostic efficacy of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM is significantly necessary to assist in the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2. As of 10 May 2020, 22 studies published in Chinese or English were selected in this study. A total of 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 controls were included in our meta‐analysis. In this unusual and urgent situation, most of the included studies were retrospective and did not meet the QUADAS guidelines well, but a summary meta‐analysis from the studies still had significantly reference value for the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2. 28
This meta‐analysis results showed promising accuracy for IgG detection in diagnosing SARS‐CoV‐2, in which the pooled sensitivity was 0.85 and specificity was 0.99, with an AUC of 0.99. The pooled diagnostic performance of IgM was slightly lower than those of IgG, with a sensitivity of 0.74 and an AUC of 0.95. Additionally, combining the IgG and IgM test did not obtain a higher diagnostic accuracy than single IgG. Subgroup analysis among groups with different detection methods demonstrated that the diagnostic efficacy of the antibody test by ELISA was slightly lower than that by CLIA and GICA (P>.05). Taking the principles of accuracy and simplicity into consideration, we commented that GICA was the preferred method. A meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM test was performed in Brazil, 29 in which the pooled sensitivity of IgG and IgM (0.97 and 0.82) were all higher than those in our meta‐analysis (0.85 and 0.74). As our analysis contained more studies (22 vs 11) and patients, it is more accurate than the previous report.
Researchers have demonstrated the longitudinal change of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM in patients with SARS‐CoV‐2. Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM appeared in the blood and could be initially detected after 5 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 3‐6) of symptom onset, 30 and lasted for 1 month and gradually decreased. 31 And the median duration of IgG antibody detection was 14 days (IQR: 10‐18) 30 and lasted for a longer time. 31 These results suggested that the test of the serum antibodies was exceedingly helpful for the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 after the corresponding window periods. In particular, the detection efficiency of IgM was considered higher than that of the RT‐PCR method after 5.5 days of symptom onset. 30 Moreover, another study showed that a higher titer of the antibody was highly associated with a worse clinical classification. 32
However, the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM for patients in window periods had low‐diagnostic efficiency. And, the diagnostic efficiency of the serological antibody test in asymptomatic carriers was unclear. An earlier study showed that anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG was positive in only 20% (1 of 5) asymptomatic carriers, and IgM was negative in all the five carriers. 33 And, a positive IgG was detected after 18 days of diagnosis with SARS‐CoV‐2 by RT‐PCR. The sample size was relatively small, but it still indicated that the antibody test was not applicable to asymptomatic populations. Furthermore, there is no evidence for cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfections in literature, but only patients with positive PCR test and IgM seroconversion several weeks after negative RT‐PCR tests. 34 As the acquired immunity and the presence of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies were thought to protect upon further exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2, the negative RT‐PCR test was considered as a false‐negative, which may result from reduced viral loads in convalescence, sampling errors during collection or transport. 35 And IgM seroconversion was considered deriving from an expansion of IgM+ memory B cells. There is currently no evidence to support the use of a specific antibody test to diagnose the reinfection of SARS‐CoV‐2. So, if any, I think that the diagnosis of reinfection may be based on symptoms, radiological imaging, leukocytes count, and inflammatory indexes alterations. 36
4.1. Limitations
This review has several limitations. First, none of the persons with cover, cough, and runny nose of unknown origin was enrolled in the studies. Controls in all the included studies were proven without SARS‐CoV‐2, leading to an exaggerated specificity. Second, this meta‐analysis had high heterogeneity. The bivariate random‐effects model was applied to weaken influences by heterogeneity. And also, we performed subgroup and sensitivity analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Finally, all the patients included in this analysis were first infected with SARS‐CoV‐2, and the diagnostic efficiency of the specific immunoglobulin for reinfection of SARS‐CoV‐2 is unclear.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This meta‐analysis showed that the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2. It was suitable for patients with symptoms for at least 5 days.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Z‐LZ and Y‐LH formulated the research questions, designed the study, developed the preliminary search strategy, and drafted the manuscript. F‐ZL and D‐TL refined the search strategy, searched, collected the articles, and then conducted quality assessment. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Supporting information
Supporting information
Supporting information
Supporting information
Supporting information
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Prof Hui Chen for his support and guidance. This study was supported by the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (grant number HLJJ2014‐21).
Notes
Zhang Z‐L, Hou Y‐L, Li D‐T, Li F‐Z. Diagnostic efficacy of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG/IgM test for COVID‐19: A meta‐analysis. J Med Virol. 2021;93:366–374. 10.1002/jmv.26211 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
REFERENCES
Full text links
Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26211
Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc7361902?pdf=render
Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Citations of article over time
Alternative metrics
Smart citations by scite.ai
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been
supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1002/jmv.26211
Article citations
Performance of Three Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Anti-S and One Anti-N Immunoassays for the Monitoring of Immune Status and Vaccine Response.
Viruses, 16(2):292, 14 Feb 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38400067 | PMCID: PMC10891747
Latin-American Registry of Cardiovascular Disease and COVID-19: Final Results.
Glob Heart, 18(1):60, 01 Nov 2023
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 37928360 | PMCID: PMC10624135
A review of current effective COVID-19 testing methods and quality control.
Arch Microbiol, 205(6):239, 17 May 2023
Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 37195393 | PMCID: PMC10189236
Review Free full text in Europe PMC
Comparison of the conventional tube and erythrocyte-magnetized technology in titration of red blood cell alloantibodies.
World J Biol Chem, 14(3):62-71, 01 May 2023
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 37273684 | PMCID: PMC10236968
Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.
Vaccines (Basel), 11(2):374, 06 Feb 2023
Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 36851252 | PMCID: PMC9960989
Review Free full text in Europe PMC
Go to all (29) article citations
Data
Data behind the article
This data has been text mined from the article, or deposited into data resources.
BioStudies: supplemental material and supporting data
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Evaluation of serum IgM and IgG antibodies in COVID-19 patients by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay.
J Med Virol, 93(5):2857-2866, 01 Mar 2021
Cited by: 19 articles | PMID: 33331654
Closing the serological gap in the diagnostic testing for COVID-19: The value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies.
J Med Virol, 93(3):1436-1442, 21 Aug 2020
Cited by: 27 articles | PMID: 32790181 | PMCID: PMC7436746
Seropositivity rate and diagnostic accuracy of serological tests in 2019-nCoV cases: a pooled analysis of individual studies.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 24(19):10208-10218, 01 Oct 2020
Cited by: 10 articles | PMID: 33090430
Review
Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests and kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Rev Med Virol, 31(3):e2181, 05 Nov 2020
Cited by: 43 articles | PMID: 33152146
Review
Validation of a new automated chemiluminescent anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody assay system detecting both N and S proteins in Japan.
PLoS One, 16(3):e0247711, 04 Mar 2021
Cited by: 10 articles | PMID: 33661990 | PMCID: PMC7932516
Funding
Funders who supported this work.
The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (1)
Grant ID: HLJJ2014-21