<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Numerous individual studies have investigated the diagnostic value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the conclusions remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection in the diagnosis of NPC.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019145532. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese data libraries (Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM) were searched up to January 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood, negative likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios were conducted in this meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated the test-performance global summary. Publication bias was examined by Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Forty-seven studies with 8382 NPC patients (NPC group) and 15,089 individuals without NPC (Control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood (+ LR), negative likelihood (-LR), DOR and AUC of <jats:bold>EBV-DNA</jats:bold> in diagnosis of NPC were: 0.76 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.73–0.77), 0.96 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.95–0.97), 14.66 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 9.97–21.55), 0.19 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.13–0.28), 84 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 50.45–139.88), 0.96 (<jats:italic>SE</jats:italic>: 0.001), and 0.55 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.54–0.57), 0.96 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.96–0.97), 12.91 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 9.55–17.45), 0.35 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.29–0.43), 39.57 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 26.44–59.23), 0.94 (<jats:italic>SE:</jats:italic> 0.002) for the <jats:bold>EA-IgA</jats:bold>, and 0.85 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.84–0.85), 0.89 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.88–0.89), 6.73 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic>5.38–8.43), 0.17 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.12–0.23), 43.03 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 31.51–58.76), 0.93 (<jats:italic>SE</jats:italic>: 0.007) for the <jats:bold>VCA-IgA</jats:bold>, and 0.86 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.85–0.88), 0.87 (95% <jats:italic>CI </jats:italic>0.88–0.90), 7.55 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 5.79–9.87), 0.16 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.13–0.19), 50.95 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 34.35–75.57), 0.94 (<jats:italic>SE:</jats:italic> 0.008) for the <jats:bold>EBNA1-IgA</jats:bold>, and 0.70 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.69–0.71), 0.94 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.94–0.95), 9.84 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 8.40–11.54), 0.25 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 0.21–0.31), 40.59 (95% <jats:italic>CI</jats:italic> 32.09–51.35), 0.95 (<jats:italic>SE:</jats:italic> 0.005) for the <jats:bold>Rta-IgG</jats:bold>. The EBV-DNA had larger AUC compared with other EBV-based antibodies (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.05), while the difference between EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG was not statistically significant (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> > 0.05).</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>EBV-DNA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection have high accuracy in early diagnosis NPC. In addition, EBV-DNA detection has the higher diagnosis accuracy in NPC. On the other hand, EA-IgA is suitable for the diagnosis but not NPC screening.</jats:p> </jats:sec>