SynthesisInternational immunopharmacology2021
Rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review.
Synthesis in International immunopharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients.Microbiological research · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Cryptic Circulation and Co-Infections of Endemic Human Coronaviruses During the First Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Biotechnological Preparedness for Novel Pandemics: Diagnostic Performance of IVDS Against SARS-CoV-2.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Review
- A Cross-Sectional Study of the Use of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Community Identification of SARS-CoV-2 in Kenya.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Biases in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies using cohort design.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- A higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population in Brazil.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- A Smartphone-Based Platform Assisted by Artificial Intelligence for Reading and Reporting Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Evaluation Study in SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Immunoassays.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Update on COVID-19 and Effectiveness of a Vaccination Campaign in a Global Context.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Usefulness of laboratory parameters and chest CT in the early diagnosis of COVID-19.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global health threat and remains a challenge for modern medicine. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is vital for proper disease and outbreak management. Our review aimed to analyze scientific articles published in the literature addressing the rapid tests available for COVID-19 diagnosis at the first year of the pandemic.
methodsA systematic review was performed from October 22 to 27, 2020, searching data published in PubMed and Google Scholar databases, using subject headings or keywords related to point of care and rapid test diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
resultsThe first survey identified 403 articles, but only 23 met the defined criteria for the systematic analysis. The sensitivity and specificity parameters were assessed in 19 studies, and the data suggested that there was lower sensitivity in the period 1 to 7 days after the emergence of symptoms (∼38%) higher sensitivity at 8 to 14 days (∼90%), and the highest at 15 to 39 days (∼98%). Accuracy was reported in six studies, reporting values above 50%. Only three studies reported a possible cross-reaction.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the rapid tests used in the first year of the pandemic were tested with a small number of samples and not adequately validated. And the studies that described them were conducted with little scientific rigor.
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.