key: cord-0704299-fiidxdcq
authors: Makoah, Nigel A; Tipih, Thomas; Litabe, Matefo M; Brink, Mareza; Sempa, Joseph B; Goedhals, Dominique; Burt, Felicity J
title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19
date: 2021-12-15
journal: Future virology
DOI: 10.2217/fvl-2021-0211
sha: fe5a7edc517b6a44fe902f534cbdbbec7c8a7a23
doc_id: 704299
cord_uid: fiidxdcq

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.

kits, limited adequately equipped laboratory facilities and the need for clinical laboratory scientists are blunting effective response to the pandemic. Consequently, underdiagnosis is resulting in undetected viral transmission making Africa a fertile ground for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. If diagnostic testing capacity is to be enhanced by using serological assays, then the limitations of serology, specifically demonstration of early antibody in the diagnostic laboratory, need to be defined for accurate interpretation of results.

Serological assays are reliable, simple, and cost-effective techniques that allow direct and indirect detection of infections [5] . Laboratory-based serological methods, such as ELISA, chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) are used as supportive diagnostic tools in the attempt of widening access to diagnosis, screening of asymptomatic persons, and providing information on the immune status of recovered persons to end isolation [6] .

Serological tests generally detect IgA, IgG, IgM or total antibodies from patient sera or plasma, that are directed against the SARS-CoV-2 specific spike protein (S) and/or nucleocapsid protein (N). The kinetics of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies against the specific SARS-CoV-2 proteins informs host immune response and is a critical application of diagnostic tests. Antibody profiling in COVID-19 patients has been described in several studies and it has been shown that an IgM antibody response is detectable as early as 3 days post illness onset and peak levels were observed between the second and the third week, while IgG antibody was detected from day four of illness with peak levels observed between the third to the fourth week [7] [8] [9] [10] . However, after profiling IgM and IgG antibodies in 26 COVID-19 patients in one study, the immunoglobulins either appeared at the same time or varied whether IgM or IgG was detected first [8] . In yet another study, longitudinal profiling of serum, saliva and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies, demonstrated the dominance of IgA isotypes within the first week of symptom onset [11] . These observations may highlight the importance of assaying all the three isotypes (IgA, IgM and IgG) in diagnosis of acute COVID-19. Evidence from follow-up studies of COVID-19 patients suggests that serum IgA and IgM antibodies gradually decline after achieving peak levels; while on the contrary IgG persist longer [12, 13] . Current data suggest that serological testing can detect infection a few days after the onset of symptoms and might be a suitable approach to complement molecular tests and increase the diagnostic reliability. Additionally, serological tests might be instrumental in low-income countries where access to molecular testing can be difficult.

Previous systematic reviews pooled sensitivity stratified by test type and immunoglobulin class and reported lower sensitivities with the LFIA tests compared with ELISA and CLIA. Hence the use of LFIA tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 has been questioned. The sensitivity of LFIA, CLIA and ELISA have been reported the lowest during the first week of symptom onset but peaked in the third week or later [14, 15] . Even though the current evidence points to an increase in sensitivity later during infection, serological tests still result in many false negatives [14] . The use of serological tests in medical decision making should be accompanied with caution [14] . It is worthy noting that previous reviews included studies mostly from China.

In this systematic review we investigated serological assays and analyzed the results to determine the sensitivity of various serological assays for early detection of antibody response during acute phase of illness to support molecular diagnosis. Our study provides pooled sensitivity stratified by test type, immunoglobulin class and test antigen from studies across the world which included at least 300 samples to assess the performance of serological tests within 7 days of symptom onset.

We performed a search on 15 April 2021, using the following databases with no restriction in languages: MEDLINE, Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-Wide Information through EBSCOhost, Web of Science and Scopus. Our search terms were (antibody test or IgG or IgM or IgA) and (diagnostic or RT-PCR) and (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 or coronavirus).

Eligible studies were full research articles assessing serological assays as diagnostic tools for the laboratory confirmation of COVID- 19 . We included studies in which sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 serological diagnostic were evaluated against the gold standard RT-PCR as reference. We excluded case reports, review articles, editorials and viewpoints. Research articles with less than 300 samples used to estimate sensitivity and specificity were excluded based on recommendations by Bujang and Adnan [16] independently screened titles and abstracts, and three (NA Makoah, MM Litabe and M Brink) independently screened full-text papers, and disagreements were resolved by two agreeing.

Four investigators (NA Makoah, T Tipih, M Brink and MM Litabe) extracted and verified data on sensitivity, specificity, serological methods, the immunoglobulin class detected and the antigens targeted.

CMIA, eCLIA and CLIA were all summarized as CLIA because of the similarities in the method.

We performed a meta-analysis on pooled studies, by test methods (CLIA, LFIA or ELISA) and test antigen (nucleocapsid [N], receptor-binding domain [RBD] , N and spike glycoprotein [S], S, subunit 1 of the spike glycoprotein [S1]), which reported sensitivities and specificities for 7 days and overall. The study aims to identify the best test method and or test antigen type, with the highest pooled sensitivity and specificity results, to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 at 7 day and overall post infection. Statistical analysis was performed using R, version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with 'mada' package [17] . We performed a bivariate metaanalysis by pooling sensitivities and specificities of test method, and for test method and test antigen. For the 7 days meta-analysis, we analyzed pooled sensitivities, while we used both pooled sensitivities and specificities for the overall analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed based level of statistical significance, where p < 0.05 shows that the true effects vary [18] . Results from the meta-analysis were summarized into pooled mean and 95% CI.

Overall, 2113 records were identified through database searches, and 1389 records were analyzed after duplicate removal. A total of 1062 records were excluded after a full screening of the title and abstract. Finally, 327 full texts were screened, and 58 articles met the inclusion criteria ( Figure 1 ) . Table 1 summarizes the studies, including countries, test methods and number of samples. The total number of tests extracted exceeds the total number of publications included in the review because more than one method was evaluated in some studies. The maximum number of tests evaluated in a single study was 12 [29] . The global distribution of identified articles include China (n = 14), the USA (n = 10), France (n = 8), Italy (n = 3), Singapore (n = 3), Germany (n = 3), India (n = 3), Taiwan (n = 2), Belgium (n = 2), while Switzerland, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Iran, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Thailand, Qatar and the United Kingdom each contributed one article. Two of the selected studies were conducted in more than one country [53, 64] .

A range of serological assays were evaluated in the identified articles and these include CLIA (n = 64), ELISA (n = 49), LFIA (n = 31), luciferase immunoprecipitation system (n = 3), Immunoblot and flow cytometry-based assays were each reported in single studies. One study used synthetic peptides derived from the open reading frame 1a/b, S and N proteins to develop a chemiluminescent assay to detect IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 [21] . The antigen types described in the articles were N (n = 77), S (n = 28), S1 (n = 25), RBD (n = 15), subunit 2 of the spike glycoprotein (S2 [ n = 8]) and whole virus lysate (n = 4). In four articles, the target antigen was not reported.

Forty-four papers reported diagnostic data on commercial serological kits while 18 studies reported data obtained using in-house developed kits (Table 1) . In five publications, in-house assays were evaluated in parallel with commercial assays [23, 36, 37, 42, 57] .

Sensitivity from onset of symptoms to 7 days We identified 22 articles that reported the sensitivity data from onset of symptoms up to 7 days post symptom onset and extracted data on sensitivity, the antigens targeted, and the antibodies detected (Supplementary Table   10 6). Specificity data based on days after onset of symptoms was not reported in the identified articles. In three articles [59, 72, 73] , sensitivity and specificity data were stratified by days after PCR test and were therefore not included in the analysis. A total of 60 serology methods were extracted including CLIA (n = 26), LFIA (n = 17), ELISA (n = 16) and flow cytometry (n = 1). A total of 61 results were extracted and analyzed since some of the methods gave more than one result for immunoglobulin type detection (Supplementary Table 6 ). Eight antigen formats were described in the assays and the most frequently evaluated immunoglobulin classes included IgG (n = 36) and IgM (n = 16). Three studies evaluated IgA and reported sensitivities of 37.5 [22] , 33.3 [29] and 23% [73] . A Luminex-based assay using the RBD antigen reported a positive percent agreement of 46.15% [33] . We also identified one study [49] reporting a total antibody-based fluorescence enzyme immunoassay system using S1 antigens with 53.9% sensitivity.

The forest plots in Figure 2 show the sensitivity range for the LFIA serological tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the identified articles. The sensitivity of IgG based LFIA tests (n = 9), ranged from 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.23) [73] to 0.44 (95% CI: 0.24-0.67) [29] . The LFIA IgM tests (n = 7) sensitivity ranged from 0.02 (95% CI: 0-0.16) to 0.38 (95% CI: 0.19-0.61) [22] . While the LFIA IgM-IgG tests (n = 13), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 (95% CI: 0.04-0.32) [65] to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.56-0.92) [22] .

We then evaluated the performance of the CLIA compared with the rRT-PCR ( Figure 3 ). The sensitivity estimates of CLIA IgG tests (n = 14) ranged from 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.11) [70] to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69-0.88) [66] . The sensitivity for the CLIA IgM or IgM-IgG tests (n = 7) ranged from 0.17 (95% CI: 0.06-0.37) [39] to 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.90) [66] . The CLIA total antibody-based tests (n = 6) sensitivity estimates ranged from 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.17) [35] to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.49-0.90) [49] . At last, we analyzed the performance of the ELISA compared with the rRT-PCR (Figure 4 ). Among the ELISA IgG tests (n = 10), sensitivity ranged from 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.15) to 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33-0.67) [73] . ELISA IgM tests (n = 5), sensitivity ranged from 0.07 (95% CI: 0.02-0.21) [35] to 0.37 (95% CI: 0.20-0.57) [52] , while the ELISA IgM-IgG based tests (n = 6), sensitivity ranged from 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04-0.24) [35] to 0.61 (95% CI: 0.36-0.81) [49] .

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of the serological tests within 7 days of post symptoms onset and the results are shown in 

We identified 33 articles that reported the overall sensitivity and specificity (Supplementary Table 7 assay [37] , peptide assay based on the S antigen [47] and the immunoblot assay [34] were 69, 95.5 and 81%, respectively, while the specificities ranged from 93 to 99%. Results also suggest that combining S and N as the target antigen performs better than any other antigen or combination of antigens. The overall sensitivity for the IgG, IgM and IgM-IgG LFIA tests (n = 12) ranged from 0.37 (95% CI: 0.27-0.48) [60] to 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98) [53, 58] and specificity from 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95) [46] to 1 (95% CI: 0.98-1) ( Figure 5 ) [68] . Among the CLIA tests (n = 33), the sensitivity estimates spanned from 0.39 (95% CI: 0.32-0.46) [69] to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92-0.99) [55] and specificity from 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96) [71] to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.95-1.00) ( Figure 6 ) [61] . The overall sensitivity estimates for the ELISA tests (n = 23) ranged from 0.64 (95% CI: 0.51-0.76) [37] to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) [76] and specificity from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63-0.74) [42] to 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00) (Figure 7 ) [70] .

The overall performance of serological tests compared with the rRT-PCR was evaluated and the results are shown in Table 4 Table 5) . We also evaluated heterogeneity for the LFIA, CLIA and ELISA based methods (Supplementary Table 2 ). Significant heterogeneity was observed only with the CLIA IgG, ELISA IgG, ELISA IgM-IgG tests.

COVID-19 continues to pose a major global healthcare challenge despite the accelerated delivery of vaccination. It remains necessary to identify infection early and isolate the infected individual to reduce the spread of the disease.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the utility of serological assays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom development in PCR-positive patients. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data based on days after PCR test to categorize days of symptom onset were not incorporated into the analysis. We reasoned that the actual number of days post symptom onset are likely to be underestimated if classified by the number of days after the PCR test. Additionally, we evaluated the overall diagnostic performance of serological test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum from patients with a positive RT-PCR test.

Our meta-analysis yielded high specificities ranging from 95.3% (95% CI: 91.75-96.9) to 99% (95% CI: 96.09-99.71) compared with the rRT-PCR. Similar studies have reported pooled specificities spanning from 95% (95% CI: 91-98) to 99.9% (97.78-100) [14, 15, 77, 78] . Sensitivity estimates for within 7 days since onset of disease could not be evaluated because identified studies did not provide the data.

Overall, CLIA IgM-IgG demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity of 88.1% (95% CI: 84.26-91.01) and 98.6% (95% CI: 96.34-99.38) respectively. Since the 95% CIs were overlapping, we performed statistical analysis of the pooled mean sensitivities to determine whether they were significantly different across the different sets of tests used. The pooled mean sensitivity obtained with CLIA IgM-IgG was significantly higher than LFIA IgM and CLIA IgG only (Supplementary Table 4 ). Unlike previous studies that have reported lower sensitivities with the LFIA test method compared with the CLIA and ELISA based assays within each antibody class [14, 15, 77, 78] [14, 77, 78] . Our results and those from previous studies demonstrate that the clinical utility of serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies within 7 days since symptom onset is limited. Patients with 7 days and fewer post symptoms onset could be in a pre-seroconversion state; consequently, higher antibody positivity has been reported at least 14 days post symptoms onset [78] [79] [80] .

We evaluated the immunoglobulin class and antigens that can be targeted to maximize the performance of serological tests. Overall, CLIA based assays measuring the total antibody against the RBD had the best diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity of 93.3% (95% CI: 88.54-96.03) and 98.8% (95% CI: 96.54-99.59), respectively (Table 5) . A previous study reported the highest sensitivity with tests detecting the total antibody against both the N and S antigens [78] . Our search did not yield serological tests detecting the total antibody against the N and S antigens. Within 7 days of developing symptoms, the highest sensitivity was obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG targeting the spike protein, 53.2% (95% CI: 31.52-73.16) ( Table 3) . Even though the CLIA total antibody RBD and the ELISA IgM-IgG S had higher estimates of accuracy, the estimated pooled mean sensitivities and specificities were not significantly higher than all the identified test methods targeting other antigens (Supplementary Table 5) .

We assessed whether serological tests detecting both IgM and IgG have higher diagnostic sensitivity compared with tests measuring either IgM or IgG. Such knowledge would assist in prioritizing the procurement of serological diagnostic kits. Our study shows that combining IgG and IgM yields higher sensitivity compared with measuring IgM alone with ELISA tests and IgG in LFIA tests within 7 days of symptom onset (Supplementary Table 3 ). There was no enhanced benefit of assaying both IgM and IgG with the CLIA based assays during the first week of symptom onset. Overall, detecting both IgM and IgG was superior to detecting IgG or IgM with the CLIA and LFIA tests (Supplementary Table 4 ). However, larger studies would be required to verify these results.

The performance of IgM-based assays was evaluated against the IgG based serological tests in our study. Regarding overall estimates of diagnostic accuracy, CLIA IgM and ELISA IgM serological methods had higher pooled sensitivity estimates compared with the CLIA IgG and ELISA IgG test methods. In LFIA tests, detecting the IgG seemed to be a better choice than assaying the IgM. The meta-analysis by Bastos et al. and Vengesai et al. reported higher pooled sensitivities with the CLIA IgG and LFIA IgG based serological assays compared with the respective IgM test methods albeit with overlapping 95% CIs, while with the ELISA methods higher positivity was obtained by detecting the IgM [14, 15] . Regarding sensitivity within 7 days of symptom onset, our findings show that neither IgM nor IgG was a more sensitive marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. That IgM and IgG sensitivities were comparable within the first week of disease onset was expected since both have been detected during the first week of symptom onset [8, 81, 82] . The early appearance of the IgG may be a consequence of the original antigenic sin effect [83] . IgA has been reported early after infection [84, 85] thus is a potential early diagnostic marker for SARS-CoV-2. However, few studies have systematically evaluated IgA in large studies. In our study, we identified only three studies reporting sensitivities of 37.5 [22] , 33.3 [29] and 23% [73] within the first week of illness.

This study has some limitations. The magnitude of immune response is influenced by several factors such as age, disease severity and the presence of immunodeficiency disorders which were not considered among the study participants from which blood samples were collected. Studies stratifying the study population according to age, disease severity and immune health are therefore necessary. Studies included in the analysis stratified patients according to the date of symptom onset, relying on participants recalling from memory thus potentially introducing recall bias. In addition, there was insufficient data in the studies to evaluate the cross-reactivity of the serological assays.

Choice of antigen did not appear to influence the outcome of sensitivity although there were differences in sensitivity for different types of assays performed. Our results show that serological tests based on CLIA IgM and ELISA IgM-IgG were the most sensitive during the first week post symptoms onset. As mentioned previously, the role of antibody detection has limitations in acute diagnosis because of the time taken for the development of an endogenous demonstrable antibody response. However, in resource-challenged settings, serology could play a role taking into consideration the limitations of sensitivity when interpreting the results.

• The present systematic review presents a synthesis of the sensitivity of antibody tests commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. It also assesses which antibody tests could be used to support RT-PCR for the diagnostic of COVID-19. • Research articles describing or comparing antibody tests for the diagnostic of COVID-19, were extracted from various databases. Those including at least 300 samples tested were included in this study. The sensitivity data were extracted at different time points post positive RT-PCR diagnostic, and a meta-analysis was performed. • The data showed that measuring IgG and IgM yields higher sensitivity compared with measuring IgM alone with ELISA and IgG in lateral flow immunochromatographic assay tests within 7 days of symptom onset and the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests within the first 7 days. • 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 and have application in surveillance. Serological tests based on chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM and ELISA IgM-IgG were the most sensitive during the first week post symptom onset.

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/sup pl/10.2217/fvl-2021-0211

We would like to thank NRF SARChI Vector borne and zoonotic pathogens research (Grant number 98346) and the NRF Thuthuka have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (HSREC) (ethics no.: UFS-HSD2020/2102/2601) at the University of the Free State.

Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in human: a descriptive study

The architecture of SARS-CoV-2 transcriptome

Role of structural and non-structural proteins and therapeutic targets of SARS-CoV-2 for COVID-19

World Health Organization. Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases: interim guidance

Development and optimization of in-house ELISA for detection of human IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 full length spike protein

A multi-target lateral flow immunoassay enabling the specific and sensitive detection of total antibodies to SARS COV-2

Patterns of IgG and IgM antibody response in COVID-19 patients

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19

Kinetics of viral load and antibody response in relation to COVID-19 severity

Immune phenotyping based on the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG level predicts disease severity and outcome for patients with COVID-19

IgA dominates the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2

Persistence and decay of human antibody responses to the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 patients

Longitudinal change of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic and meta-analysis review on the diagnostic accuracy of antibodies in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19

Requirements for minimum sample size for sensitivity and specificity analysis

mada: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. R Package Version 0

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Evaluation of antibody response in symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients and diagnostic assessment of new IgM/IgG ELISA kits

Performance characteristics of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and seroprevalence in

A peptide-based magnetic chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay for serological diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019

Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies via rapid diagnostic immunoassays in COVID-19 patients

Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays in India

Multicenter evaluation of two chemiluminescence and three lateral flow immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody dynamic responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan

Clinical evaluation of serological IgG antibody response on the Abbott Architect for established SARS-CoV-2 infection

Recent advances in the evaluation of serological assays for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19. Front

Validation of a combined ELISA to detect IgG, IgA and IgM antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in mild or moderate non-hospitalised patients

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets

Diagnostic performance of commercially available COVID-19 serology tests in Brazil

Comparison of five serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Rapid determination of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a bedside, point-of-care, serological test

Evaluating 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests by use of the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) method

A high-throughput Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing platform for COVID-19

Automated Western immunoblotting detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies

Comparison of the Elecsys R Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay with the EDI™ enzyme linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma

Improved detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by microsphere-based antibody assay

A comparison of four serological assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum samples from different populations

Comparison of the clinical performances of the Abbott Alinity IgG, Abbott Architect IgM, and Roche Elecsys Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays

Performance of three automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and relevance of orthogonal testing algorithms

Development, performance evaluation, and clinical application of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG test kit based on automated fluorescence immunoassay

Development of an automated chemiluminescence assay system for quantitative measurement of multiple anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Evaluation of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests by using samples from patients with defined IgG antibody titers

Prevalence of Sars-Cov-2 infection in health workers (HWs) and diagnostic test performance: the experience of a teaching hospital in Central Italy

Performance of an automated chemiluminescence SARS-CoV-2 IG-G assay

Serum SARS-COV-2 nucleocapsid protein: a sensitivity and specificity early diagnostic marker for SARS-COV-2 infection

Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis

Systematic evaluation of IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-derived peptides for monitoring COVID-19 patients

Development and clinical application of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test strip: a multi-center assessment across

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan

A preliminary study on serological assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 238 admitted hospital patients

Clinical application of chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis

Evaluation of nucleocapsid and spike protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

A facile assay for rapid detection of COVID-19 antibodies

Longitudinal characterization of the IgM and IgG humoral response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using the Abbott Architect

Evaluation of Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 CMIA IgG and Euroimmun ELISA IgG/IgA assays in a clinical lab

Retrospective clinical evaluation of 4 lateral flow assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG

Development of a fast SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, based on receptor-binding domain, and its comparative evaluation using temporally segregated samples from RT-PCR positive individuals

Clinical application of combined detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody and nucleic acid

Validation of SARS-CoV-2 serological essay, bahrain experience

Comparison of serologic and molecular SARS-CoV 2 results in a large cohort in southern Tuscany demonstrates a role for serologic testing to increase diagnostic sensitivity

Diagnostic accuracy comparison of three fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers

Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Performance of the COVID19SEROSpeed IgM/IgG rapid test, an immunochromatographic assay for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter European study

Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests on capillary whole blood samples from the fingertip

Development and multicenter performance evaluation of fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG immunoassays

Multiplex assays for the identification of serological signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an antibody-based diagnostic and machine learning study

Validity of a serological diagnostic kit for SARS-CoV-2 available in Iran

Comparative clinical evaluation of the Roche Elecsys and Abbott severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology assays for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Performance characteristics of four high-throughput immunoassays for detection of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Evaluation of three commercial SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays and their performance in two-test algorithms

Antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein evaluated by four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs

Evaluation of the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological tools and their positioning in COVID-19 diagnostic strategies

Combination of serological total antibody and RT-PCR test for detection of SARS-COV-2 infections

Characteristics of three different chemiluminescence assays for testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Evaluation of serum IgM and IgG antibodies in COVID-19 patients by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals

Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection after exposure and post-symptom onset

Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG seropositivity to detect COVID-19

Profile of Immunoglobulin G and IgM antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Immune phenotyping based on the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG level predicts disease severity and outcome for patients with COVID-19

A novel hypothesis for original antigenic sin in the severe disease of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

IgA-Ab response to spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19: a longitudinal study