ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Testing: The Tower of Babel.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 and Recreational Skiing: Results of a Rapid Systematic Review and Possible Preventive Measures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Characteristics and risk factors of isolated and quarantined children and adolescents during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in Modena, Northern Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Clinical Application of the Novel Cell-Based Biosensor for the Ultra-Rapid Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 Spike Protein Antigen: A Practical Approach.Biosensors · 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimTesting represents one of the main pillars of public health response to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. This paper shows how accuracy and utility of testing programs depend not just on the type of tests, but on the context as well.
methodsWe describe the testing methods that have been developed and the possible testing strategies; then, we focus on two possible methods of population-wide testing, i.e., pooled testing and testing with rapid antigen tests. We show the accuracy of split-pooling method and how, in different pre-test probability scenarios, the positive and negative predictive values vary using rapid antigen tests.
resultsSplit-pooling, followed by retesting of negative results, shows a higher sensitivity than individual testing and requires fewer tests. In case of low pre-test probability, a negative result with antigen test could allow to rule out the infection, while, in case of a positive result, a confirmatory molecular test would be necessary.
conclusionsTest performance alone is not enough to properly choose which test to use; goals and context of the testing program are essential. We advocate the use of pooled strategies when planning population-wide screening, and the weekly use of rapid tests for close periodic monitoring in low-prevalence populations.
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.