Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources: Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysis: Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results: 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).Conclusion: Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Molecular tests for tuberculosis (TB) have the potential to help reach the three million people with TB who are undiagnosed or not reported each year and to improve the quality of care TB patients receive by providing accurate, quick results, including rapid drug-susceptibility testing. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the use of molecular nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) tests for TB detection instead of smear microscopy, as they are able to detect TB more accurately, particularly in patients with paucibacillary disease and in people living with HIV.

Invasive collection methods are often required to obtain samples for the microbiological evaluation of children with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). Nucleic acid amplification testing of easier-to-collect stool samples could be a noninvasive method of diagnosing PTB. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of testing stool with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (“stool Xpert”) for childhood PTB. Four databases were searched for publications from January 2008 to June 2018. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy among children of stool Xpert compared to a microbiological reference standard of conventional specimens tested by mycobacterial culture or Xpert were eligible. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity of stool Xpert against the reference standard. From 1,589 citations, 9 studies (n = 1,681) were included. Median participant ages ranged from 1.3 to 10.6 years. Protocols for stool processing and testing varied substantially, with differences in reagents and methods of homogenization and filtering. Against the microbiological reference standard, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of stool Xpert were 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52 to 79%) and 99% (95% CI, 98 to 99%), respectively. Sensitivity was higher among children with HIV (79% [95% CI, 68 to 87%] versus 60% [95% CI, 44 to 74%] among HIV-uninfected children). Heterogeneity was high. Data were insufficient for subgroup analyses among children under the age of 5 years, the most relevant target population. Stool Xpert could be a noninvasive method of ruling in PTB in children, particularly those with HIV. However, studies focused on children under 5 years of age are needed, and generalizability of the evidence is limited by the lack of standardized stool preparation and testing protocols.

Current WHO recommendations for monitoring treatment response in adult pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) are sputum smear microscopy and/or culture conversion at the end of the intensive phase of treatment. These methods either have suboptimal accuracy or a long turnaround time.

New diagnostic innovations for tuberculosis (TB), including point-of-care solutions, are critical to reach the goals of the End TB Strategy. However, despite decades of research, numerous reports on new biomarker candidates, and significant investment, no well-performing, simple and rapid TB diagnostic test is yet available on the market, and the search for accurate, non-DNA biomarkers remains a priority. To help overcome this 'biomarker pipeline problem', FIND and partners are working on the development of a well-curated and user-friendly TB biomarker database. The web-based database will enable the dynamic tracking of evidence surrounding biomarker candidates in relation to target product profiles (TPPs) for needed TB diagnostics. It will be able to accommodate raw datasets and facilitate the verification of promising biomarker candidates and the identification of novel biomarker combinations. As such, the database will simplify data and knowledge sharing, empower collaboration, help in the coordination of efforts and allocation of resources, streamline the verification and validation of biomarker candidates, and ultimately lead to an accelerated translation into clinically useful tools.