Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis
by
Panagiota I. Kontou 1,†, Georgia G. Braliou 1,†
, Niki L. Dimou 2, Georgios Nikolopoulos 3 and Pantelis G. Bagos 1,*
Panagiota I. Kontou 1,†, Georgia G. Braliou 1,†, Niki L. Dimou 2, Georgios Nikolopoulos 3 and Pantelis G. Bagos 1,*
1
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Papasiopoulou 2-4, 35131 Lamia, Greece
2
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69372 Lyon, France
3
Medical School, University of Cyprus, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2020, 10(5), 319; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050319
Received: 27 April 2020 / Revised: 13 May 2020 / Accepted: 14 May 2020 / Published: 19 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Virus Diagnostic Methods and Techniques: Learning from the COVID-19 Global Outbreak)
The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%–94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
antibody test; SARS-CoV-2; IgM; IgG; COVID-19; ELISA
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
- Supplementary File 1:
PDF-Document (PDF, 211 KB)
MDPI and ACS Style
Kontou, P.I.; Braliou, G.G.; Dimou, N.L.; Nikolopoulos, G.; Bagos, P.G. Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 319.
Show more citation formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
Search more from Scilit
