ArticleBMJ open2021
Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Analysis of the monitoring of the expansion of Covid-19 testing and surveillance in a municipality.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- The protective effect of serum antibodies in preventing SARS-CoV-2 virus entry into cardiac muscle.Physiological research · 2024Article
- Molecular diagnostic approaches for SARS-CoV-2 detection and pathophysiological consequences.Molecular biology reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Detection of Antibody versus Antigen, Optimal Option of Different Serological Assays Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Review
- Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2022Review
- [Security protocols adapted to COVID-19 in elective surgery thru 2021].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2022Article
- Performance Evaluation of Lateral Flow Assays for Coronavirus Disease-19 Serology.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Challenges Faced in Large-Scale Nucleic Acid Testing during the Sudden Outbreak of the B.1.617.2 (Delta).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Can We Cryopreserve the Sperm of COVID-19 Patients During the Pandemic?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- As Omicron Takes Hold and Other New Variants Arise, COVID-19 Testing Remains the Universally Agreed Tool to Effect Transition From Pandemic to Endemic State.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Immunogenicity and safety of the booster BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with biological disease-modifying drugs.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Observational
- Are surgical and non-operating room intervention safe in the COVID-19 pandemic? A retrospective study.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Rationale for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 screening in patients undergoing in-laboratory sleep studies.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 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
12 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTesting used in screening, diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19 has been a subject of debate. Several organisations have developed formal advice about testing for COVID-19 to assist in the control of the disease. We collated, delineated and appraised current worldwide recommendations about the role and applications of tests to control SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.
methodsWe searched for documents providing recommendations for COVID-19 testing in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database and relevant websites such as TRIP database, ECRI Guidelines Trust, the GIN database, from inception to 21 September 2020. Two reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to potentially relevant citations without language or geographical restrictions. We extracted data in duplicate, including assessment of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II tool.
resultsWe included 47 relevant documents and 327 recommendations about testing. Regarding the quality of the documents, we found that the domains with the lowest scores were 'Editorial independence' (Median=4%) and 'Applicability' (Median=6%). Only six documents obtained at least 50% score for the 'Rigour of development' domain. An important number of recommendations focused on the diagnosis of suspected cases (48%) and deisolation measures (11%). The most frequently recommended test was the reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (87 recommendations) and the chest CT (38 recommendations). There were 22 areas of agreement among guidance developers, including the use of RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 confirmation, the limited role of bronchoscopy, the use chest CT and chest X-rays for grading severity and the co-assessment for other respiratory pathogens.
conclusionThis first scoping review of recommendations for COVID-19 testing showed many limitations in the methodological quality of included guidance documents that could affect the confidence of clinicians in their implementation. Future guidance documents should incorporate a minimum set of key methodological characteristics to enhance their applicability for decision making.
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.