ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Tracking SARS-CoV-2: Novel Trends and Diagnostic Strategies.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid and comprehensive detection of viral antibodies and nucleic acids via an acoustofluidic integrated molecular diagnostics chip: AIMDx.Science advances · 2025Article
- Clinical Validation of GenBody COVID-19 Ag, Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Rapid Antigen Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in European Adult Population.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Vaccines · 2023Review
- A deep transfer learning approach for COVID-19 detection and exploring a sense of belonging with Diabetes.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Microbiological and Clinical Findings of SARS-CoV-2 Infection after 2 Years of Pandemic: From Lung to Gut Microbiota.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Detection Using the Lucira™ Check It COVID-19 Test Kit.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test for bronchoalveolar lavage.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Rational Design of CRISPR/Cas12a-RPA Based One-Pot COVID-19 Detection with Design of Experiments.ACS synthetic biology · 2022Article
- In Silico Prediction and Selection of Target Sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 RNA Genome for an Antiviral Attack.Viruses · 2022Article
- High-throughput and automated screening for COVID-19.Frontiers in medical technology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on economies and health systems globally, therefore a top priority is the development of increasingly better diagnostic and surveillance alternatives to slow down the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In order to establish massive testing and contact tracing policies, it is crucial to have a clear view of the diagnostic options available and their principal advantages and drawbacks. Although classical molecular methods such as RT-qPCR are broadly used, diagnostic alternatives based on technologies such as LAMP, antigen, serological testing, or the application of novel technologies such as CRISPR-Cas for diagnostics, are also discussed. The present review also discusses the most important automation strategies employed to increase testing capability. Several serological-based diagnostic kits are presented, as well as novel nanotechnology-based diagnostic methods. In summary, this review provides a clear diagnostic landscape of the most relevant tools to track COVID-19.
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.