Table 3.
The pooled sensitivity and specificity of subgroup meta‐analyses and meta‐regression
| Antidody | Test method (n) | I 2 (%) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | P value | I 2 (%) | Specificity (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IgG | GICA (7) | 87.09 | 0.83 (0.73, 0.90) | .07 | 77.27 | 0.99 (0.96, 1.00) | .71 |
| CLIA (8) | 93.16 | 0.90 (0.84, 0.95) | 0 | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) | |||
| ELISA (3) | ⋯ | 0.69 (0.48, 0.85) | ⋯ | 0.99 (0.96, 1.00) | |||
| IgM | GICA (9) | 96.54 | 0.74 (0.60, 0.85) | .93 | 76.97 | 0.97 (0.93, 0.99) | 1.00 |
| CLIA (9) | 81.24 | 0.74 (0.60, 0.85) | 63.67 | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) | |||
| ELISA (2) | ⋯ | 0.71 (0.40, 0.91) | ⋯ | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | |||
| IgG/IgM | GICA (8) | 85.30 | 0.84 (0.78, 0.90) | .06 | 23.78 | 0.95 (0.93, 0.98) | 1.00 |
| CLIA (3) | ⋯ | 0.96 (0.91, 0.98) | ⋯ | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | |||
| ELISA (2) | ⋯ | 0.69 (0.50, 0.85) | ⋯ | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) |
Note: The P value was obtained comparing ELISA with GILA and CLIA.
Abbreviations: CLIA, chemiluminescence immunoassay; ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; GICA, gold immunochromatography assay; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M.