A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

Nigel A Makoah; Thomas Tipih; Matefo M Litabe; Mareza Brink; Joseph B Sempa; Dominique Goedhals; Felicity J Burt

doi:10.2217/fvl-2021-0211

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

Future Virol. 2021 Nov:10.2217/fvl-2021-0211. doi: 10.2217/fvl-2021-0211. Epub 2021 Dec 15.

Authors

Nigel A Makoah¹, Thomas Tipih¹, Matefo M Litabe¹, Mareza Brink², Joseph B Sempa^{3

4}, Dominique Goedhals^{1

5}, Felicity J Burt^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of The Free State, Bloemfontein, 9301, South Africa.
² Free State Department of Health, Bloemfontein, 9301, South Africa.
³ Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of The Free State, Bloemfontein, 9301, South Africa.
⁴ DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling & Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, 7600, South Africa.
⁵ Division of Virology, National Health Laboratory Service, Bloemfontein, 9301, South Africa.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom onset in patients confirmed with the real-time RT-PCR. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 publications were performed using data obtained from Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-wide, Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE. Results: We found that the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests. Conclusion: Serological tests have low sensitivity within the first week of symptom onset and cannot replace nucleic acid amplification tests. However, serological assays can be used to support nucleic acid amplification tests.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-PCR; laboratory diagnosis; serology.

Publication types

Review