Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35390680›Full record

ReviewTalanta2022

Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods.

Olena Filchakova, Dina Dossym, Aisha Ilyas, Tamila Kuanysheva, Altynay Abdizhamil, Rostislav Bukasov

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Talanta, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
22.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review: Detection of Cancer Biomarkers from a Clinical Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A review on the mechanism and potential diagnostic application of CRISPR/Cas13a system.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Olena FilchakovaBiology Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan.
Dina DossymChemistry Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan.
Aisha IlyasChemistry Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan.
Tamila KuanyshevaChemistry Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan.
Altynay AbdizhamilChemistry Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan.
Rostislav BukasovChemistry Department, SSH, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, 010000, Kazakhstan. Electronic address: rostislav.bukasov@nu.edu.kz.
Nazarbayev University · KZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) virus and corresponding human antibodies is essential not only for diagnostics and treatment of the infection by medical institutions, but also as a pre-requisite for major semi-normal economic and social activities such as international flights, off line work and study in offices, access to malls, sport and social events. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, time to results and cost per test are essential parameters of those tests and even minimal improvement in any of them may have noticeable impact on life in the many countries of the world. We described, analyzed and compared methods of COVID-19 detection, while representing their parameters in 22 tables. Also, we compared test performance of some FDA approved test kits with clinical performance of some non-FDA approved methods just described in scientific literature. RT-PCR still remains a golden standard in detection of the virus, but a pressing need for alternative less expensive, more rapid, point of care methods is evident. Those methods that may eventually get developed to satisfy this need are explained, discussed, quantitatively compared. The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntibody to SARS-CoV-2CLIACOVID-19 testsCRISPRCT scanningELISAFalse negative resultsFalse positive resultsLAMPLateral flow immunoassaysRapid detectionRT-PCR of SARS CoV-2SARS CoV-2Time to resultsUltrasound scanning

Identifiers

PMID35390680
PMCPMC8970625
OpenAlexW4220877703

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.