• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Influenza Other Respir Viruses . An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis a

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Influenza Other Respir Viruses


. 2025 Sep;19(9):e70155.
doi: 10.1111/irv.70155. An Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for Seven Different SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays: A Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Minjie Zhang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ying Zhao[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lijiang Fang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Weiwei Liang[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of seven different commercial serological assays for COVID-19, using RT-PCR as the gold standard, through meta-analysis and indirect comparison.
Methods: Fifty-seven studies, published from November 2019 to June 2024, were included. The diagnostic performance of IgA, IgG, and total antibody assays for SARS-CoV-2 was assessed. The netmeta, rjags, and gemtc packages in R software were used for adjusted indirect comparison to calculate the relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR).
Results: The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 542.81, for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N was 1022.34, for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total was 1701.56, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA was 45.91, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-IgG was 190.45, for Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-IgG was 82.63, and for LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG was 178.73. The pooled DOR for IgG, IgA, and total antibody assays was 241.43, 45.91, and 1124.48. The pooled DOR for the antinucleocapsid antigen (anti-N) was 604.29; for the antidomain of viral spike protein (anti-S1) and the antirecombinant S1 and S2 (anti-S1/S2) antigens, the pooled DORs were 119.88 and 178.73. ECLIA and CMIA methods had superior diagnostic performance compared with CLIA and ELISA, with no significant difference between ECLIA and CMIA. Total antibody assays showed the highest accuracy, followed by IgG, with IgA performing least effectively.
Conclusions: Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total and N assays had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The diagnostic efficacy of the anti-N total, IgG antibodies was statistically significantly higher than that of anti-S IgG and IgA antibodies for COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID‐19; SARS‐CoV‐2; adjusted indirect comparison; meta‐analysis; serological assays.

 
Back
Top