ReviewJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges.
Review in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Strategies for Identifying SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Clinical Practice: a Systematic Review and Compliance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Guideline (STARD).Microbiology spectrum · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A novel viral RNA detection method based on the combined use of trans-acting ribozymes and HCR-FRET analyses.PloS one · 2024Article
- Meta-DiSc 2.0: a web application for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- The Coronavirus Standards Working Group's roadmap for improved population testing.Nature biotechnology · 2022Article
- Bayesian latent class analysis produced diagnostic accuracy estimates that were more interpretable than composite reference standards for extrapulmonary tuberculosis tests.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Impact on Diagnostic Innovations: Emerging Trends and Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In battling the COVID-19 pandemic, testing is essential. The detection of viral RNA allows the identification of infected persons, whereas the detection of antibodies may reveal a response to a previous infection. Tests for coronavirus should be rigorously evaluated in terms of their analytical and clinical performance. This poses not only logistic challenges, but also methodological ones. Some of these are generic for the diagnostic accuracy paradigm, whereas others are more specific for tests for viruses. Problematic for evaluations of the clinical performance of tests for viral RNA is the absence of an independent reference standard. Many studies lack rigor in terms of the recruitment of study participants. Study reports are often insufficiently informative, which makes it difficult to assess the applicability of study findings. Attempts to summarize the performance of these tests in terms of a single estimate of the clinical sensitivity fail to do justice to the identifiable sources of the large heterogeneity in mechanisms for generating false negative results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.