The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic first broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has now spread worldwide. Laboratory findings have been only partially described in some observational studies. To date, more comprehensive systematic reviews of laboratory findings on COVID-19 are missing. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Observational studies from three databases were selected. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model meta-analysis. A total of 1106 articles were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI (China), and other sources. After screening, 28 and 7 studies were selected for a systematic review and a meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 4,663 patients included, the most prevalent laboratory finding was increased Creactive protein (CRP; 73.6%, 95% CI 65.0-81.3%), followed by decreased albumin (62.9%, 95% CI 28.3-91.2%), increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate (61.2%, 95% CI 41.3-81.0%), decreased eosinophils (58.4%, 95% CI 46.5-69.8%), increased interleukin-6 (53.1%, 95% CI 36.0-70.0%), lymphopenia (47.9%, 95% CI 41.6-54.9%), and increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 46.2%, 95% CI 37.9-54.7%). A meta-analysis of seven studies with 1905 patients showed that increased CRP (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.4), lymphopenia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.3-6.0), and increased LDH (OR 6.7, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9) were significantly associated with severity. These results demonstrated that more attention is warranted when interpreting laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients with elevated CRP levels, lymphopenia, or elevated LDH require proper management and, if necessary, transfer to the intensive care unit.

The serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID‐19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random‐effects model meta‐analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2, were selected for a meta‐analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79‐0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐0.99) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65‐0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93‐0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay ( P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.