Comparative Analysis of COVID-19 Serological testing methods to Polymerase Chain Reaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Chisompola, D.; Maleti, A.; Tembo, K. M.; Banda, T.; Chishinji, G. M.; Phiri, R.
Show abstract
BackgroundAccurate and reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential for effective disease management and public health interventions. SARS-CoV-2 antibody/antigen tests play a crucial role in identifying covid-19 infections and assessing immunity in populations. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests in diagnosing COVID-19. MethodA comprehensive systematic review of the literature was conducted using prominent scientific databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Scopus to search studies published from January 2020 to May 2023. The review followed the PRISMA-DTA framework to ensure transparency and rigor in the selection and evaluation of studies. The QUADAS-2 tool was utilized to assess study quality and risk of bias. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD 42023445695). ResultsThe pooled sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody/antigen tests was found to be 73% (95% CI: 60-86), with individual studies reporting a wide range from 30% to 100%. The pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 97-100), with values ranging from 85.9% to 100%. The pooled accuracy was 88%, showing variation from 50% to 100% across different studies. ConclusionThis review highlights the moderate to high sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody/antigen tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. The substantial variability in test performance necessitates the standardization of testing protocols and further research to improve accuracy and reliability. These findings offer valuable insights for clinical decision-making and the formulation of effective public health strategies related to COVID-19 diagnosis.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients 95%
- Accuracy of serological tests for diagnosis of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic 97%
- Antibody response in individuals affected with Sars-Cov-2 infection: temporal trends and qualitative and quantitative differences in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. A Cross Sectional Analysis. Ab-Covid Study 93%
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test (Abbott) compared to RT-qPCR 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Prevalence and determinants of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the general population of the Gardena Valley 93%
- Combining antibody markers for serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2 to estimate seroprevalence and time-since-infection 93%
- RNA-extraction-free diagnostic method to detect SARS-CoV-2: an assessment from two States, India 92%
"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.