Table 4 The subgroup analysis related to region, the prevalence was examined based on the population type (healthy and unhealthy), the diagnostic test type (ELISA–CLISA–LFIA–VN), and the sampling type (random and non-random)
From: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence around the world: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Regions | Variables | Â | Pooled prevalence (95% CI) | Heterogeneity assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I square | P heterogeneity | ||||
Western Pacific | Study population | Healthy | 3% (2–5%) | 90.20% | 0.000 |
Un-healthy | 2% (1–3%) | 91.55% | 0.000 | ||
Diagnostic methods | ELISA | 7% (3–10%) | 17.03% | 0.281 | |
CLIA | 1% (0–2%) | 0.00% | 0.320 | ||
LFIA | 4% (3–5%) | 41.35% | 0.160 | ||
VN | 1% (0–2%) | 55.02% | 0.301 | ||
Sampling methods | Random | 4% (2–5%) | 89.65% | 0.000 | |
Non-random | 2% (0–4%) | 84.23% | 0.000 | ||
Time | 2 months after pandemic | 2% (1–3%) | 93.20% | 0.000 | |
4 months after pandemic | 3% (2–5%) | – | – | ||
5 months after pandemic | 4% (3–5%) | – | – | ||
6 months after pandemic | 2% (1–3%) | – | – | ||
7 months after pandemic | 1% (1–2%) | – | – | ||
8 months after pandemic | 5% (4–6%) | – | – | ||
Perspective | Local | 4% (2–6%) | 91.05% | 0.000 | |
Regional | 3% (1–5%) | 89.04% | 0.000 | ||
National | – | – | – | ||
Type of study | Cohort | 2% (1–3%) | 88.08% | 0.000 | |
Cross-sectional | 4% (2–6%) | 91.90% | 0.000 | ||
European | Study population | Healthy | 5% (4–6%) | 92.15% | 0.000 |
Un-healthy | 20% (16–23%) | 89.22% | 0.000 | ||
Diagnostic methods | ELISA | 6% (4–8%) | 78.65% | 0.030 | |
CLIA | 6% (3–9%) | 79.99% | 0.001 | ||
LFIA | 4% (2–8%) | 90.36% | 0.000 | ||
VN | 7% (5–8%) | 77.00% | 0.000 | ||
ECLIA | 1% (1–3%) | – |  | ||
Sampling methods | Random | 5% (4–6%) | 97.68% | 0.000 | |
Non-random | 6% (3–8%) | 90.22% | 0.000 | ||
Time | 2 months after pandemic | 23% (19–28%) | 88.17% | 0.000 | |
3 months after pandemic | 5% (4–7%) | 89.08% | 0.000 | ||
4 months after pandemic | 4% (2–7%) | 92.54% | 0.000 | ||
5 months after pandemic | 6% (5–8%) | 84.28% | 0.000 | ||
6 months after pandemic | 3% (2–6%) | 98.90% | 0.000 | ||
7 months after pandemic | 5% (3–7%) | 87.09% | 0.000 | ||
Perspective | Local | 8% (6–11%) | 89.00% | 0.000 | |
Regional | 6% (3–8%) | 88.89% | 0.000 | ||
National | 3% (2–4%) | 83.49% | 0.000 | ||
Type of study | Cohort | 5% (2–8%) | 99.90% | 0.000 | |
Cross-sectional | 6% (5–7%) | 98.56% | 0.000 | ||
America | Study population | Healthy | 9% (8–12%) | 92.19% | 0.000 |
Un-healthy | – | – | – | ||
Diagnostic methods | ELISA | 12% (10–15%) | 79.00% | 0.001 | |
CLIA | 6% (4–8%) | 81.54% | 0.001 | ||
LFIA | 6% (4–9%) | 88.99% | 0.000 | ||
VN | – | – | – | ||
Sampling methods | Random | 9% (7–11%) | 97.22% | 0.000 | |
Non-random | 10% (7–13%) | 98.48% | 0.000 | ||
Time | 4 months after pandemic | 7% (3–12%) | 89.22% | 0.000 | |
5 months after pandemic | 8% (5–13%) | 80.29% | 0.000 | ||
6 months after pandemic | 9% (6–14%) | 93.00% | 0.000 | ||
7 months after pandemic | 11% (0–32%) | 92.33% | 0.000 | ||
Perspective | Local | 12% (6–19%) | 99.52% | 0.000 | |
Regional | 6% (4–10%) | 92.54% | 0.000 | ||
National | 3% (4–10%) | – | – | ||
Type of study | Cohort | 7% (2–14%) | 79.90% | 0.000 | |
Cross-sectional | 9% (6–12%) | 77.56% | 0.000 | ||