ReviewThe Indian journal of tuberculosis2020
Laboratory diagnosis of novel corona virus (2019-nCoV)-present and the future.
Review in The Indian journal of tuberculosis, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Transfer Learning-based ResNet models in Chest X-ray image classification for detecting COVID-19 Pneumonia.Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems : an international journal sponsored by the Chemometrics Society · 2022Article
- Review
- To be a head and neck surgical trainee in the COVID-19 era. Residents' perspectives after one year of residency 2.0.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn December 2019 a novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the Hunan seafood market in Wuhan, China, and soon became a global health problem. Since its outbreak, SARS-CoV-2 has had a major impact on clinical diagnostic laboratories. The scientific community has quickly risen to the occasion and reports of new developments have arrived at an unprecedented scale. At present, there is a growing list of over 400 SARC-CoV-2 diagnostic tests either in development or approved for clinical use. This presentation reviews the current laboratory methods available for testing COVID- 19 in microbiology laboratories and also provides an insight into the future diagnostics approaches.
methodsProper respiratory specimen collected at the appropriate time and from the right anatomical site is critical in the accurate and timely diagnosis of SARSCoV2. While oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs are recommended for the detection of early infection, other lower respiratory tract specimens like the sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage are used for late detection and monitoring of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. RESULTS AND
conclusionReal-time RT-PCR based molecular assay remains the test of choice for the etiological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 while serological tests are being introduced as supplementary tools. Finally, there is an urgent need for scaling up the diagnostic capacity by the introduction of reliable and accurate point-of-care tests which will assist in effective control of this outbreak. These assays can be used in the local hospitals and clinics bearing the burden of identifying and treating patients.
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.