ReviewCurrent medical research and opinion2021
Ravaging SARS-CoV-2: rudimentary diagnosis and puzzling immunological responses.
Review in Current medical research and opinion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary fungal infections in SARS-CoV-2 patients: pathological whereabouts, cautionary measures, and steadfast treatments.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2023Review
- In silico analysis of the aggregation propensity of the SARS-CoV-2 proteome: Insight into possible cellular pathologies.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Proteins and proteomics · 2021Article
- Challenges of dengue and coronavirus disease 2019 coinfection: two case reports.Journal of medical case reports · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn December 2019, the first COVID-19 case, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China. The SARS-CoV-2 rapidly disseminated throughout the world OBSERVATIONS: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was soon perceived critical for arresting community spread and effective therapy development. Human SARS-CoV-2 infection can be diagnosed either by nucleic acid identification or specific antibody detection. Contrary to nucleic acid identification confirmed active SARS-CoV-2 infection; antibody detection confirms a past infection, even in asymptomatic subjects. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies augment the ability to effectively counter the virus. A crucial hurdle limiting the steadfast implementation of antibody detection is the time required for threshold B lymphocyte population generation. This process is dependent on precise antigen recognition and MHC class I molecules presentation.
conclusionsThus, nucleic acid and antibody dependent tests complement each other in identifying human SARS-CoV-2 infection and shaping up subsequent immunological responses. This article discusses the complimentary association of nucleic acid identification (corresponding to an active infection) and antibody testing (the yester CoV-2 infection vulnerability) as the diagnostic and screening measures of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Highlights Nucleic acid (RNA) identification and specific antibody detection against SARS-CoV-2 are the noted diagnostic mechanisms for screening human SARS-CoV-2 infection. While nucleic acid identification screens prevailing SARS-CoV-2 infection, detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies signifies a past infection, even in asymptomatic subjects. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 provide a potential therapeutic option
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.