ReviewBiosensors2021
State of the Art on the SARS-CoV-2 Toolkit for Antigen Detection: One Year Later.
Review in Biosensors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organic Electrochemical Transistor Immuno-Sensors for Spike Protein Early Detection.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Sensitive SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewaters using a carbon nanodot-amplified electrochemiluminescence immunosensor.Talanta · 2022Article
- Review
- Isothermal amplification-assisted diagnostics for COVID-19.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2022Review
- Advanced Electrochemical and Opto-Electrochemical Biosensors for Quantitative Analysis of Disease Markers and Viruses.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Paper-based immunoassay based on 96-well wax-printed paper plate combined with magnetic beads and colorimetric smartphone-assisted measure for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2022Article
- Molecular accuracy vs antigenic speed: SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.Current opinion in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Visual Detection of COVID-19 from Materials Aspect.Advanced fiber materials · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent global events of COVID-19 in 2020 have alerted the world to the risk of viruses and their impacts on human health, including their impacts in the social and economic sectors. Rapid tests are urgently required to enable antigen detection and thus to facilitate rapid and simple evaluations of contagious individuals, with the overriding goal to delimitate spread of the virus among the population. Many efforts have been achieved in recent months through the realization of novel diagnostic tools for rapid, affordable, and accurate analysis, thereby enabling prompt responses to the pandemic infection. This review reports the latest results on electrochemical and optical biosensors realized for the specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens, thus providing an overview of the available diagnostics tested and marketed for SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as their pros and cons.
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.