About: Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis
Creator	Bagos, Pantelis Braliou, Georgia Dimou, Niki Kontou, Panagiota Nikolopoulos, Georgios
source	Medline; PMC
abstract	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.
has issue date	2020-05-19(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.3390/diagnostics10050319
bibo:pmid	32438677
has license	cc-by
sha1sum (hex)	65aa04e87ad3d1509a37a38c56343157e475140c
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050319
resource representing a document's title	Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7278002
has PubMed identifier	32438677
schema:publication	Diagnostics (Basel)
resource representing a document's body	covid:65aa04e87ad3d1509a37a38c56343157e475140c#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'systematic review' named entity 'based' named entity 'Coronavirus disease 2019' named entity 'symptoms' named entity 'FIA' named entity 'PERFORMED' named entity 'LEVELS' named entity 'INCONCLUSIVE' named entity 'FLOW' named entity 'helpful' named entity 'diagnostic tests' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'sensitive' named entity 'individuals' named entity 'All' named entity 'needed' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'FIA' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'infection' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'seroprevalence' named entity 'diagnostic tests' named entity 'gold standard' named entity 'Lateral Flow' named entity 'CLIA' named entity 'Coronavirus disease 2019' named entity 'antigen-based' named entity 'seroprevalence' named entity 'Nucleic Acid' named entity 'systematic reviews' named entity 'Statistical significance' named entity 'US Food and Drug Administration' named entity 'rapid test' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'IgG' named entity '25 studies' named entity 'Diagnostic Accuracy' named entity 'publication bias' named entity 'chemiluminescence' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'IgM' named entity 'MERS-CoV' named entity 'pneumonia' named entity 'health-care' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'FDA' named entity 'method of moments' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'publication bias' named entity 'antibody tests' named entity 'antibody' named entity 'comorbidities' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity 'coronavirus disease 2019' named entity 'TPR' named entity 'immunoassay' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'positive and negative controls' named entity 'Meta-analyses' named entity 'blood samples' named entity 'antibodies' named entity 'great recession' named entity 'small study' named entity 'regression analysis' named entity 'recombinant' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'antibody tests' named entity 'Meta-analysis' named entity 'TPR' named entity 'infection' named entity 'colloidal gold' named entity 'IgG' named entity 'IgM'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software