Abstract
We systematically reviewed the current understanding of human population immunity against SARS-CoV in different groups, settings and geography. Our meta-analysis, which included all identified studies except those on wild animal handlers, yielded an overall seroprevalence of 0.10% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.18]. Health-care workers and others who had close contact with SARS patients had a slightly higher degree of seroconversion (0.23%, 95% CI 0.02-0.45) compared to healthy blood donors, others from the general community or non-SARS patients recruited from the health-care setting (0.16%, 95% CI 0-0.37). When analysed by the two broad classes of testing procedures, it is clear that serial confirmatory test protocols resulted in a much lower estimate (0.050%, 95% CI 0-0.15) than single test protocols (0.20%, 95% CI 0.06-0.34). Potential epidemiological and laboratory pitfalls are also discussed as they may give rise to false or inconsistent results in measuring the seroprevalence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV.