SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostic Tests for Border Screening During the Very Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during border screening among returning residents and prioritized travelers during the early phase of a pandemic can reduce the risk of importation and transmission in the community. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of various SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and assess their potential utility as border screening for infection and immunity. Systematic literature searches were conducted in six electronic databases for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics (up to April 30, 2020). Meta-analysis and methodological assessment were conducted for all included studies. The performance of the diagnostic tests was evaluated with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their respective 95% confidence intervals. A total of 5,416 unique studies were identified and 95 studies (at least 29,785 patients/samples) were included. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) consistently outperformed all other diagnostic methods regardless of the selected viral genes with a pooled sensitivity of 98% and a pooled specificity of 99%. Point-of-care (POC) serology tests had moderately high pooled sensitivity (69%), albeit lower than laboratory-based serology tests (89%), but both had high pooled specificity (96-98%). Serology tests were more sensitive for sampling collected at ≥ 7 days than ≤ 7 days from the disease symptoms onset. POC NAAT and POC serology tests are suitable for detecting infection and immunity against the virus, respectively as border screening. Independent validation in each country is highly encouraged with the preferred choice of diagnostic tool/s.
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.