Optimize Clinical Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 from Suspect Cases by Likelihood Ratio of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody

  1. Feng Yangchun

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To optimize clinical laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 from suspect cases by Likelihood Ratio of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody.

Methods

By reinterpreting the data in the article “Diagnostic Value of Combined Detection of Serum 2019 novel coronavirus IgM and IgG Antibodies in novel coronavirusin Infection”, the positive likelihood ratio of IgM and IgG antibody in diagnosis of COVID-19 (nucleic acid positive patients) was calculated, and the posterior probability of IgM and IgG antibodies and their tandem detection to diagnose was finally calculated.

Results

The positive likelihood ratios of single IgM and IgG antibody were 18.50 and 12.65 respectively, and the posterior probabilities were 90.18% and 86.26% respectively. However, the posterior probability of the two antibodies tandem detection is 99.15%, which can give clinicians quantitative confidence in the diagnosis of COVID-19 from suspected cases. According to the results of this study, combining the advantages and disadvantages of nucleic acid detection and antibody detection, the clinical pathway for clinicians to diagnose COVID-19 is found.

Conclusion

For suspected cases, IgM and IgG antibody tests should be firstly done at the same time. If the antibody tests are all positive, COVID-19 can be confirmed. If not, nucleic acid detection (one or more times) is performed, and in extreme cases, high-throughput viral genome sequencing is performed.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.07.20053660: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Data and Test: The positive Likelihood Ratio (LR+) of IgM and IgG in suspected cases for nucleic acid positive patients was calculated mainly by reinterpreting the data in the article “Diagnostic Value of Combined Detection of Serum 2019 novel coronavirus IgM and IgG Antibody in novel coronavirus Infection”, According to the relevant data in “novel coronavirus Nucleic Acid Detection and Analysis of Combined Infection Results of 8274 Subjects in Wuhan Area”, the posterior probability of IgM and IgG antibody detection alone and in series for diagnosis of nucleic acid positive patients was calculated.
    IgG
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.07.20053660v1 on medRxiv