RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Meta-analysis of the clinical performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, antigen and antibody tests up to 22 August 2020
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.16.20195917
DO 10.1101/2020.09.16.20195917
A1 Van Walle, I
A1 Leitmeyer, K
A1 Broberg, E K
A1 ,
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/18/2020.09.16.20195917.abstract
AB We reviewed the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, viral antigen and antibody tests based on 94739 test results from 157 published studies and 20205 new test results from 12 EU/EEA Member States. Pooling the results and considering only results with 95% confidence interval width ≤5%, we found 4 nucleic acid tests, among which 1 point of care test, and 3 antibody tests with a clinical sensitivity ≥95% for at least one target population (hospitalised, mild or asymptomatic, or unknown). Analogously, 9 nucleic acid tests and 25 antibody tests, among which 12 point of care tests, had a clinical specificity of ≥98%. Three antibody tests achieved both thresholds. Evidence for nucleic acid and antigen point of care tests remains scarce at present, and sensitivity varied substantially. Study heterogeneity was low for 8/14 (57.1%) sensitivity and 68/84 (81.0%) specificity results with confidence interval width ≤5%, and lower for nucleic acid tests than antibody tests. Manufacturer reported clinical performance was significantly higher than independently assessed in 11/32 (34.4%) and 4/34 (11.8%) cases for sensitivity and specificity respectively, indicating a need for improvement in this area. Continuous monitoring of clinical performance within more clearly defined target populations is needed.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementPieter Vermeersch is a senior clinical investigator of the FWO-VlaanderenAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are either publicly available or included in the supplementary material