The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background A rapidly increasing number of serological surveys for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported worldwide. We aimed to synthesise, combine, and assess this large corpus of data. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and five preprint servers for articles published in English between Dec 1, 2019, and Dec 22, 2020. Studies evaluating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in humans after the first identified case in the area were included. Studies that only reported serological responses among patients with COVID-19, those using known infection status samples, or any animal experiments were all excluded. All data used for analysis were extracted from included papers. Study quality was assessed using a standardised scale. We estimated age-specific, sex-specific, and race-specific seroprevalence by WHO regions and subpopulations with different levels of exposures, and the ratio of serology-identified infections to virologically confirmed cases. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020198253. Findings 16 506 studies were identified in the initial search, 2523 were assessed for eligibility after removal of duplicates and inappropriate titles and abstracts, and 404 serological studies (representing tests in 5 168 360 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. In the 82 studies of higher quality, close contacts (18·0%, 95% CI 15·7–20·3) and high-risk health-care workers (17·1%, 9·9–24·4) had higher seroprevalence than did low-risk health-care workers (4·2%, 1·5–6·9) and the general population (8·0%, 6·8–9·2). The heterogeneity between included studies was high, with an overall I 2 of 99·9% (p<0·0001). Seroprevalence varied greatly across WHO regions, with the lowest seroprevalence of general populations in the Western Pacific region (1·7%, 95% CI 0·0–5·0). The pooled infection-to-case ratio was similar between the region of the Americas (6·9, 95% CI 2·7–17·3) and the European region (8·4, 6·5–10·7), but higher in India (56·5, 28·5–112·0), the only country in the South-East Asia region with data. Interpretation Antibody-mediated herd immunity is far from being reached in most settings. Estimates of the ratio of serologically detected infections per virologically confirmed cases across WHO regions can help provide insights into the true proportion of the population infected from routine confirmation data. Funding National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Key Emergency Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee, Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader, National Science and Technology Major project of China, the US National Institutes of Health. Translation For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 100 · Cited by 239
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Sughayer, 2020, Covid-19 seroprevalence rate in healthy blood donors from a community under strict lockdown measures, medRxiv
- Majiya, 2020, Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Niger State, medRxiv
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, X., Chen, Z., Azman, A. S., Deng, X., Sun, R., Zhao, Z., Zheng, N., Chen, X., Lu, W., Zhuang, T., Yang, J., Viboud, C., Ajelli, M., Leung, D. T., & Yu, H.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- University of Geneva (CH)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Hongjie
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Global Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e598-e609
- ISSN
- 2214-109X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8049592
- OpenAlex
- W3135657598
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 87
- FWCI
- 6.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader (18XD1400300)
- National Major Science and Technology Projects of China (010, 2017ZX10103009, 2018ZX10201001, 2018ZX10713001)
- National Institutes of Health (R01 AI135115)
- National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (81525023)
- Sanofi Pasteur
- National Science and Technology Major Project (2017ZX10103009–005, 2018ZX10201001–010, 2018ZX10713001–007)
- Fudan University
- Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20411950100)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
- Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, seroprevalence, serological survey, immunoglobulins, healthcare workers, close contacts, WHO regions, age and sex differences, underdiagnosis, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, sensitivity and specificity, false positives, false-negative results, serological cross-reactivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review