Chan 2020a.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Purpose: Diagnosis of current acute and convalescent‐phase infection Design: Multi‐group study to assess sensitivity and specificity [1] Covid subjects (n = 144) [1a] Admitted PCR‐positive samples (n = 78) for clinical performance study [1b] Archived PCR‐positive samples (n = 66) for method comparison study [2] Non covid subjects (n = 130) [2a] non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 respiratory viral samples (n = 25) [2b] Other viral positive samples (n = 52) [2c] Pre‐pandemic samples (n = 53) [1b] excluded from review as no time pso or post‐PCR+ reported. Recruitment: [1a] Admitted PCR‐positive patients who had routine metabolic profiles and serologies ordered for clinical care [1b] Archived samples from the validation studies for the EuroImmun Ab assay [2a] [2b] Not stated, likely samples from storage [2c] Pre‐pandemic samples (41 from a reference range study prior to 2018 and 12 from a banked respiratory viral panel from early 2019) Prospective or retrospective: Retrospective Sample size: 274 (144) of which 208 (78) were eligible for review Further detail: Inclusion: [1a] PCR‐positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 admitted to hospital [1b] Archived PCR‐positive samples from the validation studies for the EuroImmun Ab assay [2a] Positive for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 respiratory infection (coronaviruses: HKU1 n = 5, NL63 n = 7, OC43 n = 7, 229E n = 2, OC43 + 229E CV n = 1, Rhinovirus n = 2) [2b] Positive for other viruses (HIV n = 20, HepB n = 15, HCV n = 17) [2c] Pre‐pandemic (41 from a reference range study prior to 2018 and 12 from a banked respiratory viral panel from early 2019) Exclusion: [1a] [1b] [2a] [2b] [2c] Not stated |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Setting: [1a] Hospital inpatients Location: Chemistry and Immunology Laboratories, University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL Country: USA Dates: Not stated Symptoms and severity: [1a] All hospitalised Demographics: Not stated Exposure history: Not stated Non‐Covid group 1: [2a] non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 respiratory viral samples Source: University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL; time not stated Characteristics: HKU1 CV n = 5, NL63 CV n = 7, OC43 CV n = 7, 229E CV n = 2, OC43 CV + 229E CV n = 1, Rhinovirus n = 2 Non‐Covid group 2: [2b] Other viral positive samples [2c] Pre‐pandemic samples Source: [2b] University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL; time not stated [2c] University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL, 41 prior to 2018, 12 from early 2019 Characteristics: [2b] HIV n = 20, HepB n = 15, HCV n = 17 [2c] Not stated (41 from a reference range study prior to 2018 and 12 from a banked respiratory viral panel from early 2019) |
||
Index tests | Test name: [A] Elecsys anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assay
[B] EuroImmun IgG antibody assay (anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA) Manufacturer: [A] Roche diagnostics [B] Euroimmun Antibody: [A] Total antibody [B] IgA/IgG Antigen target: [A] Nucleocapsid protein [B] Not stated Evaluation setting: Laboratory test used in laboratory setting Test method: [A] ECLIA [B] ELISA Timing of samples: [1a] 0‐13 days post‐PCR + (n = 40) >= 14 days post‐PCR + (n = 38) Samples used: Serum and plasma Test operator: Clinical chemistry staff at the University of Chicago Definition of test positivity: [A] COI >= 1.0 positive, COI < 1.0 negative [B] Not stated Blinding reported: Unclear Threshold predefined: Yes |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Reference standard: RT‐PCR, threshold not stated Samples used: Not stated Timing of reference standard: Not stated Blinded to index test: Yes Incorporated index test: No Definition of non‐COVID cases: [2a] [2b] not stated, possibly pre‐pandemic [2c] pre‐pandemic Samples used: [2a] [2b] unclear [2c] pre‐pandemic Timing of reference standard: [2a] [2b] unclear [2c] pre‐pandemic Blinded to index test: yes, prior to index test Incorporated index test: no |
||
Flow and timing | Time interval between index and reference tests: [1a] 0‐13 days post‐PCR + (n = 40)
>= 14 days post‐PCR + (n = 38) All patients received same reference standard: No Missing data: [1b] excluded from review as well as 40 samples from [1a] < 14 days post‐PCR+ Uninterpretable results: Not stated Indeterminate results: Not stated, no indeterminate threshold Unit of analysis: Unclear |
||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Funding: Not stated Publication status: Published paper Source: American Journal of Clinical Pathology Author COI: Not stated |
||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Unclear | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | No | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Unclear | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? | No | ||
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? | High | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests) | |||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Antibody tests) | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Unclear | ||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Unclear | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Unclear | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Yes | ||
The reference standard does not incorporate the index test | Yes | ||
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | High | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | No | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Unclear | ||
Did all participants receive a reference standard? | No | ||
Were results presented per patient? | Unclear | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | High risk |