Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34026773›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2021

Review of Current COVID-19 Diagnostics and Opportunities for Further Development.

Yan Mardian, Herman Kosasih, Muhammad Karyana, Aaron Neal, Chuen-Yen Lau

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Critical Review of the CRISPR-Cas Technology in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Variants.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Prospective, clinical comparison of self-collected throat-bilateral nares swabs and saline gargle compared to health care provider collected nasopharyngeal swabs among symptomatic outpatients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yan MardianIndonesia Research Partnership on Infectious Disease (INA-RESPOND), Jakarta, Indonesia.
Herman KosasihIndonesia Research Partnership on Infectious Disease (INA-RESPOND), Jakarta, Indonesia.
Muhammad KaryanaIndonesia Research Partnership on Infectious Disease (INA-RESPOND), Jakarta, Indonesia.
Aaron NealNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Chuen-Yen LauNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Ministry of Health · IDNational Cancer Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic testing plays a critical role in addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rapid and accurate diagnostic tests are imperative for identifying and managing infected individuals, contact tracing, epidemiologic characterization, and public health decision making. Laboratory testing may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic people. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection is typically by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), which requires specialized equipment and training and may be particularly challenging in resource-limited settings. NAAT may give false-negative results due to timing of sample collection relative to infection, improper sampling of respiratory specimens, inadequate preservation of samples, and technical limitations; false-positives may occur due to technical errors, particularly contamination during the manual real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) process. Thus, clinical presentation, contact history and contemporary phyloepidemiology must be considered when interpreting results. Several sample-to-answer platforms, including high-throughput systems and Point of Care (PoC) assays, have been developed to increase testing capacity and decrease technical errors. Alternatives to RT-PCR assay, such as other RNA detection methods and antigen tests may be appropriate for certain situations, such as resource-limited settings. While sequencing is important to monitor on-going evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, antibody assays are useful for epidemiologic purposes. The ever-expanding assortment of tests, with varying clinical utility, performance requirements, and limitations, merits comparative evaluation. We herein provide a comprehensive review of currently available COVID-19 diagnostics, exploring their pros and cons as well as appropriate indications. Strategies to further optimize safety, speed, and ease of SARS-CoV-2 testing without compromising accuracy are suggested. Access to scalable diagnostic tools and continued technologic advances, including machine learning and smartphone integration, will facilitate control of the current pandemic as well as preparedness for the next one.

Indexed as

antigen testclinicalCOVID-19diagnosticsin-vitro assaymolecular testserologic test

Identifiers

PMID34026773
PMCPMC8138031
OpenAlexW3160198476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.