Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals

Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):2200-2211. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1826362.

Abstract

Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; immunoassays; metanalysis; serology.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

  • Antibodies, Viral / blood
  • Antibodies, Viral / immunology
  • Antigens, Viral / immunology
  • Betacoronavirus* / immunology
  • COVID-19
  • COVID-19 Testing
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques / methods*
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques / standards
  • Coronavirus Infections / diagnosis*
  • Coronavirus Infections / immunology
  • Coronavirus Infections / virology*
  • Humans
  • Immunoassay / methods
  • Immunoassay / standards
  • Immunoglobulin G / blood
  • Immunoglobulin G / immunology
  • Immunoglobulin M / blood
  • Immunoglobulin M / immunology
  • Pandemics
  • Pneumonia, Viral / diagnosis*
  • Pneumonia, Viral / immunology
  • Pneumonia, Viral / virology*
  • Publication Bias
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Serologic Tests / methods*
  • Serologic Tests / standards
  • Symptom Assessment

Substances

  • Antibodies, Viral
  • Antigens, Viral
  • Immunoglobulin G
  • Immunoglobulin M

Grants and funding

This study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 82041010), Shanghai Association for Science and Technology (grant number 20411950400), Shanghai Youth Science and Technology Talents Sailing Project (grant number 20YF1404300), and the Investigator Initiated Study grants (grant number Cepheid-IIS-2020-0001) to WHZ.