Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34425991›Full record

ReviewPathology2021

Use of emerging testing technologies and approaches for SARS-CoV-2: review of literature and global experience in an Australian context.

Maryza Graham, Susan A Ballard, Shivani Pasricha, Belinda Lin, Tuyet Hoang, Timothy Stinear, Julian Druce, Mike Catton, Norelle Sherry, Deborah Williamson and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen testing in a real-life clinical setting.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maryza GrahamMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Monash Health, Clayton, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: maryza.graham@unimelb.edu.au.
Susan A BallardMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Shivani PasrichaDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Belinda LinMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Tuyet HoangMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Timothy StinearDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Julian DruceVictorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Melbourne Health at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Mike CattonVictorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Melbourne Health at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Norelle SherryMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Vic, Australia.
Deborah WilliamsonMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Vic, Australia.
Benjamin P HowdenMicrobiological Diagnostic Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUVictorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging testing technologies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 include those that are rapid and can be used at point-of-care (POC), and those facilitating high throughput laboratory-based testing. Tests designed to be performed at POC (such as antigen tests and molecular assays) have the potential to expedite isolation of infectious patients and their contacts, but most are less sensitive than standard-of-care reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Data on clinical performance of the majority of emerging assays are limited with most evaluations performed on contrived or stored laboratory samples. Further evaluations of these assays are required, particularly when performed at POC on symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and at various time-points after symptom onset. A few studies have so far shown several of these assays have high specificity. However, large prospective evaluations are needed to confirm specificity, particularly before the assays are implemented in low prevalence settings or asymptomatic populations. High throughput laboratory-based testing includes the use of new sample types (e.g., saliva to increase acceptability) or innovative uses of existing technology (e.g., sample pooling). Information detailing population-wide testing strategies for SARS-COV-2 is largely missing from peer-reviewed literature. Logistics and supply chains are key considerations in any plan to 'scale up' testing in the Australian context. The strategic use of novel assays will help strike the balance between achieving adequate test numbers without overwhelming laboratory capacity. To protect testing of high-risk populations, the aims of testing with respect to the phase of the pandemic must be considered.

Indexed as

AustraliaCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Testing

Identifiers

PMID34425991
PMCPMC8352662
OpenAlexW3187674024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.