Systematic literature review of treatments used for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in adults.

BACKGROUND: Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC or UCC) is difficult to manage and is usually treated by the off-label use of drugs approved for other indications. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify and characterize the current published body of evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for RCC or UCC. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SLRs pre-defined population included patients ≥18 years of age who were diagnosed with chronic cough. The review was not restricted to any intervention type or study comparator, nor by timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 20 eligible publications from 19 unique trials were included. Seventeen of these trials were randomized controlled trials and most (14/17) were placebo-controlled. There was considerable variability between trials in the definition of RCC or UCC, participant exclusion and inclusion criteria, outcome measurement timepoints, and the safety and efficacy outcomes assessed. Several trials identified significant improvements in cough frequency, severity, or health-related quality of life measures while participants were on treatment, although these improvements did not persist in any of the studies that included a post-treatment follow-up timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of an approved therapy, placebo remains the most common comparator in trials of potential RCC or UCC treatments. The between-study comparability of the published evidence is limited by heterogeneity of study design, study populations, and outcomes measures, as well as by concerns regarding study size and risk of bias.

Chronic cough: more than just a persistent cough: a systematic literature review to understand the impact of chronic cough on quality of life.

PURPOSE: Chronic cough (CC), defined as a cough persisting ≥ 8 weeks, can have a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This is exacerbated by challenges with timely diagnosis and a lack of approved therapies. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence on HRQoL and health state utility values associated with refractory CC or unexplained CC. METHODS: Electronic database searches were supplemented with searches of conference proceedings and health technology assessment body websites. Two independent reviewers assessed all citations for inclusion based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Key inclusion criteria were patient populations with CC and reporting of patient-reported outcomes or utilities using generic or disease-specific measures. RESULTS: Following screening, 65 studies were identified for inclusion in the SLR. Of these, 23 studies assessed HRQoL among patients with CC who were not treated or treated with unspecified interventions, and 42 studies in patients who were treated with specified interventions. The studies indicated a substantial decrement to HRQoL as a result of CC, characterized by generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures. HRQoL was impacted across multiple domains, including physical, psychological, and social functioning. The studies also demonstrated the potential for treatments to have a significant positive impact on HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: CC can substantially affect HRQoL in patients, across physical, psychological, and social domains. Although treatments can improve HRQoL in these patients, the available evidence is limited. There remains an unmet need for approved pharmacological treatments to alleviate CC and improve HRQoL for these patients.

Understanding the economic burden of chronic cough: a systematic literature review.

Chronic cough (CC) is associated with high healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) due to challenges in diagnosis and treatment and is anticipated to have a substantial economic impact. This systematic literature review (SLR) sought to identify evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and the economic burden associated with CC. Electronic database searches were supplemented with searches of conference proceedings and health technology assessment body websites. Two independent reviewers assessed all citations for inclusion based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Key inclusion criteria were patient population with CC, and outcomes related to cost-effectiveness and HCRU and costs. After screening, one cost-effectiveness analysis was identified, alongside eight studies reporting HCRU and costs related to CC. Though evidence was limited, studies suggest that patients with CC incur higher costs and use more resources than those with acute cough. Types of resource use reported included healthcare contacts and prescriptions, diagnostic tests, referrals and specialist evaluations, and treatment use. There is a paucity of literature on HCRU and costs in CC, and very limited cost-effectiveness analyses. The economic burden appears higher in these patients however, without direct comparison to the general population it is difficult to determine the total impact. The increased burden is expected to be a result of the challenges with diagnosis and lack of approved treatments. However, limited conclusions can be drawn in the absence of further data. Future studies should endeavor to quantify the HCRU and cost attributable to patients with CC.

Peer support for carers and patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The support provided by people with the same condition, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), has the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes by allowing people with the disease to receive emotional support as well as to learn coping strategies from more experienced peers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on peer support interventions and their effectiveness on people with IBD. METHODS: Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, grey literature, and clinical trial registers were searched from inception to November 2021. Comparative and single-arm studies that evaluated interventions that were solely or contained in part peer support, for people with IBD and/or their carers of any age and in any setting were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using outcomes relating to physical and psychosocial function, disease control and healthcare utilisation. Data for each outcome were tabulated and presented in a narrative synthesis. Study design specific tools were used to assess risk of bias. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: Fourteen completed studies and five ongoing studies met the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the studies in relation to the intervention type and peer support was usually part of a wider intervention. All but one study analysed the total effect of the intervention, so it was not possible to fully isolate the effect of the peer support alone. The appropriateness of outcomes and outcome measurement tools for the assessment of effects was a further key issue. As such, overall, no significant evidence of beneficial effects of peer support interventions on quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes was found. CONCLUSIONS: New randomised controlled trials designed to isolate the effects of peer support are needed to evaluate the (net) effects of peer support only. Agreement on the outcomes to be targeted, and the choice of reliable and validated measurement tools for standalone peer support interventions would provide a focus for further intervention design and evaluation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol was accepted in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020168817).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to preserve insulin-secreting ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: Results from intervention studies aimed at improving glucose control.

AIMS: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by the destruction of pancreatic ß-cells. Significant levels of ß-cells remain at diagnosis. Preserving these cells improves glucose control and protects from long-term complications. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to preserve ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This paper reports the results of interventions for improving glucose control to assess whether they preserve ß-cell function. METHODS: Searches for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Eligible studies included newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, any intervention to improve glucose control and at least 1 month of follow-up. Data were extracted using a pre-defined data-extraction sheet with 10% of extractions checked by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with 1662 participants were grouped by intervention into six subgroups (alternative insulins, subcutaneous and intravenous insulin delivery, intensive therapy, glucose sensing, adjuncts). Only three studies demonstrated an improvement in glucose control as well as ß-cell function. These interventions included intensive insulin therapy and use of an alternative insulin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest comprehensive review of RCTs in this area. It demonstrates a lack of robust evidence that interventions to improve glucose control preserve ß-cell function in new onset type 1 diabetes, although analysis was hampered by low-quality evidence and inconsistent reporting of studies. Development of guidelines to support the design of trials in this field is a priority.

Noninvasive Instrument-based Tests for Detecting and Measuring Vitreous Inflammation in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to identify instrument-based tests for quantifying vitreous inflammation in uveitis, report the test reliability and the level of correlation with clinician grading. METHODS: Studies describing instrument-based tests for detecting vitreous inflammation were identified by searching bibliographic databases and trials registers. Test reliability measures and level of correlation with clinician vitreous haze grading are extracted. RESULTS: Twelve studies describing ultrasound, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and retinal photography for detecting vitreous inflammation were included: Ultrasound was used for detection of disease features, whereas OCT and retinal photography provided quantifiable measurements. Correlation with clinician grading for OCT was 0.53-0.60 (three studies) and for retinal photography was 0.51 (1 study). Both instruments showed high inter- and intra-observer reliability (>0.70 intraclass correlation and Cohen's kappa), where reported in four studies. CONCLUSION: Retinal photography and OCT are able to detect and measure vitreous inflammation. Both techniques are reliable, automatable, and warrant further evaluation.

What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of articles assessing the outcomes of community-based health-promotion campaigns to increase chlamydia screening in young people, their experiences of the campaigns and other facilitators and barriers to the conduct of the campaigns. We searched four databases for quantitative and qualitative studies with no language restrictions. MAIN RESULTS: From 10 329 records identified, 19 studies (20 articles) were included in the review: 14 quantitative, 2 qualitative and 3 mixed methods. All studies with quantitative outcomes were before-after study designs or interrupted time series. The prediction interval for relative change (RC) in test counts ranged from 0.95 to 1.56, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 1.22 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.30, 13 studies, I2=97%). For test positivity rate, 95% prediction interval was 0.59 to 1.48, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, 8 studies, I2=91.8%). Large variation in characteristics between studies precluded exploring outcomes by type of campaign components. Seven major qualitative themes to improve screening were identified: targeting of campaigns; quality of materials and message; language; anonymity; use of technology; relevance; and variety of testing options. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion campaigns aiming to increase chlamydia testing in those aged 15-24 years may show some effectiveness in increasing overall numbers of tests, however numbers of positive tests do not follow the same trend. Qualitative findings indicate that campaigns require clear, relevant messaging that displays the full range of testing options and assures anonymity in order to be effective.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.