Fig 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the studies on antigen detection tests included in the meta-analysis.
Table 2.
Characteristics of studies on IgM detection tests included in the meta-analysis.
Table 3.
Characteristics of studies on IgG detection tests included in the meta-analysis.
Table 4.
Characteristics of studies on neutralising antibodies detection tests.
Table 5.
Characteristics of the Index tests (n = 72) from the 35 included studies.
Fig 2.
Forest plot for antigen detection test based on test format; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Table 6.
Analysis for antigen detection tests.
Fig 3.
Forest plot for IgM detection test based on test format; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Table 7.
Analysis for IgM detection tests.
Fig 4.
Forest plot for IgM detection test based on in-house developed and commercial test; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Fig 5.
Forest plot for IgM detection test based on time of sampling; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Fig 6.
Forest plot for IgG detection test based on test format; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Table 8.
Analysis for IgG detection tests.
Fig 7.
Forest plot for IgG detection test based on in-house developed and commercial test; CI, confidence interval; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.
Table 9.
Subgroup analysis for commercial tests.
Table 10.
Subgroup analysis for study design.
Fig 8.
Overall percentage of risk of bias and applicability concern using the QUADAS-2 tool.
Fig 9.
Funnel plot asymmetry test to assess publication bias.
Each dot represents an individual study, and the dashed line represents the regression line. P-value = 0.236.