Diagnostic Accuracy of FDA Authorized Serology Tests to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Pandey, R.; Gourishankar, A.
Show abstract
ImportanceSerology tests are diagnostic and complementary to molecular tests during the COVID-19 pandemic. ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FDA authorized serology tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data sourcesA search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, and EMBASE up to April 4, 2020, was performed to identify studies using the "COVID 19 testing" and "meta-analysis." FDA website was accessed for the list of tests for emergency use authorization (EUA). Study SelectionManufacturer reported serology tests published in the FDA website were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the selected reports. Data extraction and synthesisThe meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A bivariate analysis using the "random-effects model" was applied for pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the serology test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Subgroup analysis of the diagnostic accuracy with lag time between symptom onset and testing were studied. ResultsSeven manufacturer listed reports were included. The pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI, 78% - 93%), the pooled specificity was 100% (95% CI, 97% - 100%), and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97. At [≤] 7 days, sensitivity was 44% (95% CI, 21% - 70%), and for 8-14 days, sensitivity was 84% (95% CI, 67 % - 94%).For blood draws [≥] 15 days after the onset of symptoms, sensitivity was 96% (95% CI, 93% - 98%). Heterogeneity was substantial, and the risk of bias was low in this analysis. Conclusions and relevanceFDA authorized serology tests demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection (certainty of evidence: moderate). There is a wide variation in the test accuracy based on the duration between the onset of symptoms and the tests (certainty of evidence: low). Key- points QuestionsWhat is the pooled diagnostic accuracy of FDA authorized serology tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies? FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of seven reports from FDA authorized serology tests to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV2 antibodies (3336 patients/ samples) pooled sensitivity was 87%, and pooled specificity was almost 100%. There was a wide variation in test performance based on the duration between the onset of symptoms and the tests. MeaningFDA authorized tests are highly accurate to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antibodies if tests are performed under a similar condition, as presented in the original report. There is a wide variation in the test performance based on the time interval between the onset of symptoms to the tests.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic 97%
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (Abbott) compared to RT-qPCR 91%
- Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections with cumulative and imputed COVID-19 cases: systematic review 93%
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 93%
- Clinical Laboratory Parameters Associated with Severe or Critical Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay as an aid in determining previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 92%
- Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 & Flu A/B Test in diagnosing COVID-19 and influenza in patients with respiratory symptoms 92%
- A rapid, high-sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid immunoassay to aid diagnosis of acute COVID-19 at the point of care 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Myocarditis and Pericarditis following COVID-19 Vaccination: Rapid Systematic Review of Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Course 93%
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 92%
- Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-detection testing for longitudinal mass screening in the workplace 92%
- Intradermal versus Intramuscular Administration of Influenza Vaccination: Rapid Review and Meta-analysis 90%
- Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Testing across SARS-CoV-2 Variants 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.