TABLE 1.

The sensitivity and specificity of IgM and IgG detection in different serological tests.

	Sensitivity (%)		Specificity (%)		Antigen used	References	Advantages	Disadvantages
	IgM	IgG	IgM	IgG
GICA	88.66*		90.63*		Recombinant antigen (MK201027)	Li et al., 2020	Rapid, flexible and accurate testing, low cost, and being less time-consuming	False positive, qualitative not quantitative
	71.1*		96.2*		Synthetic antigens of the S, M, and N proteins	Shen B. et al., 2020
	57.1	81.3	100	100	Recombinant antigen of new coronavirus	Zhang et al., 2020a
	100*		93.3*		SARS-CoV-2 NP	Huang C. et al., 2020
ELISA	44.4	82.54	100	100	Recombinant antigen of new coronavirus	Zhang et al., 2020a	High-throughput, less turn-around time, small sample consumption	Endogenous interference, poor repeatability
	77.3	83.3	100	95	The recombinant N protein of SARS-CoV-2	Xiang F. et al., 2020
	70.8	92.5	NA	NA	SARSr-CoV Rp3 nucleocapsid protein (NP)	Shu et al., 2020
FICA	98.68	98.72	93.1	100	The recombinant nucleocapsid protein	Feng et al., 2020	High sensitivity and specificity, accurate quantitative detection	Higher requirements for instruments
	75.6*		100*		SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP)	Xiang J. et al., 2020
	87.28	90.17	94	96.72	N and S1 protein	Diao et al., 2020
CLIA	78.65	91.21	97.5	97.3	NA	Padoan et al., 2020a	Easy operation, high sensitivity, large population screening	Poor selectivity, strict external factors needed
	48.1	88.9	100	90.9	N and S protein	Jin et al., 2020
	96.8	96.8	92.3	99.8	Highly purified RBD of the S protein	Ma et al., 2020
	80	90	95	95	The combined N and S glycoproteins	Qu et al., 2020

ELISA, enzyme-Linked immunosorbent assay; GICA, colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay; FICA, fluorescence immunochromatographic assay; CLIA, Chemiluminescence Immunoassay. NA, not available. *Means the sensitivity and specificity for the combination of IgM and IgG.