Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 17;2022(11):CD013652. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2

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