ReviewBiochemia medica2021
Current status of the lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Advances in Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Rapid Diagnosis of Viral Diseases.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Review
- Nanobody-Based Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Zika Virus Detection.ACS synthetic biology · 2025Article
- Informatics assessment of COVID-19 data collection: an analysis of UK Biobank questionnaire data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Efficient virus detection utilizing chitin-immobilized nanobodies synthesized in Ustilago maydis.Journal of biotechnology · 2023Article
- Electrochemical paper-based antigen sensing platform using plant-derived monoclonal antibody for detecting SARS-CoV-2.Talanta · 2023Article
- Screening and confirmation tests for SARS-CoV-2: benefits and drawbacks.Beni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences · 2023Review
- Progress in Biosensors for the Point-of-Care Diagnosis of COVID-19.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Role of Technology in Detection of COVID-19.Cureus · 2022Review
- Positivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Serial Followed-up Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Hospitalized Patients due to COVID-19.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Article
- Current Advances in Paper-Based Biosensor Technologies for Rapid COVID-19 Diagnosis.Biochip journal · 2022Review
- Nanotechnology Fundamentals Applied to Clinical Infectious Diseases and Public Health.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are priorities during the pandemic. Symptomatic and suspected asymptomatic individuals should be tested for COVID-19 to confirm infection and to be excluded from social interactions. As molecular testing capacity is overloaded during the pandemic, rapid antigen tests, such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), can be a useful tool as they allow greater test availability and obtain results in a very short time. This short review aims to present the analytical properties of LFIAs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs. Lateral flow immunoassay is a method that combines thin-layer chromatography and indirect immunochemical sandwich method and allows the detection of a specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharyngeal swabs. Swab specimens should be adequately collected and tested as soon as possible. Users should pay attention to quality control and possible interferences. Antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 show high sensitivity and specificity in cases with high viral loads, and should be used up to five days after the onset of the first symptoms of COVID-19. False positive results may be obtained when screening large populations with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infection, while false negative results may happen due to improper specimen collection or insufficient amount of antigen in the specimen. So as to achieve reliable results, a diagnostic accuracy study of a specific rapid antigen test should be performed.
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.