• English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
  • English 
    • English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   COVID-19
  • Resources in English
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19
  • View Item
  •   COVID-19
  • Resources in English
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and public health implications

 
Thumbnail
Date
2020-05-08
Author
Caini, Saverio et al
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Serology-based tests have become a key public health element in the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the degree of herd immunity that has been achieved in the population. These tests differ between one another in several ways. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of currently available SARS-CoV-2 serological tests, and assessed their real-world performance under scenarios of varying proportion of infected individuals. We included independent studies that specified the antigen used for antibody detection and used quantitative methods. We identified nine independent studies, of which six were based on commercial ELISA or CMIA/CLIA assays, and three on in-house tests. Test sensitivity ranged from 68% to 93% for IgM, from 65% to 100% for IgG, and from 83% to 98% for total antibodies. Random-effects models yielded a summary sensitivity of 82% (95%CI 75-88%) for IgM, and 85% for both IgG (95%CI 73-93%) and total antibodies (95%CI 74-94%). Specificity was very high for most tests, and its pooled estimate was 98% (95%CI 92-100%) for IgM and 99% (95%CI 98-100%) for both IgG and total antibodies. The heterogeneity of sensitivity and specificity across tests was generally high (I2≤50%). In populations with a low prevalence (≤5%) of seroconverted individuals, the positive predictive value would be ≤88% for most assays, except those reporting perfect specificity. Our data suggest that the use of serological tests for large-scale prevalence surveys (or to grant "immunity passports") are currently only justified in hard-hit regions, while they should be used with caution elsewhere.
URI
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.03.20084160
Collections
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19

Browse

AllCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesCategorySubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesCategorySubjects

My Account

LoginRegister

Pan American Health Organization
World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Americas
525 Twenty-third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, United States of America

Content Disclaimer (Important notes about the material)

Links

  • WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP)
  • WHO Coronavirus disease R&D Blueprint
  • WHO Database of Publications on Coronavirus Disease
  • PAHO Coronavirus Disease
  • PAHO/BIREME Windows of Knowledge COVID-19
  • Evidence aid Coronavirus (COVID-19) resources

  • PAHO Digital Library (IRIS PAHO)
  • Virtual Health Library (VHL)
  • Global Index Medicus (GIM)