Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35441938›Full record

ReviewMolecular biology reports2022

Considerations for the selection of tests for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics.

Huriye Erbak Yılmaz, Evin Iscan, Ozden Oz, Tuğçe Batur, Aybike Erdoğan, Seval Kılıç, Zeynep Mutlu, Murat Yılmaz, Kevin J Spring

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. [Concordance between GeneXpert and Life Real Detection Kit in the diagnosis of acute respiratory infections].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Huriye Erbak YılmazDepartment of Biochemistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. huriyeerbak@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8995-5561
Evin IscanIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Ozden OzIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Tuğçe BaturIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Aybike ErdoğanIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Seval KılıçIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Zeynep MutluIzmir International Biomedicine and Genome Institute, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Murat YılmazFaculty of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Kevin J SpringMedical Oncology Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool Clinical School, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, and South West Sydney Clinical Campus, UNSW Medicine & Health, Liverpool Hospital NSW, Liverpool, Australia.
Dokuz Eylül University · TRIzmir University · TRLiverpool Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the course of 2020, the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread rapidly across the world. Clinical diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 infection has relied on the real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and is considered the gold standard assay. Commercial vendors and laboratories quickly mobilised to develop diagnostic tests to detect the novel coronavirus, which was fundamentally important in the pandemic response. These SARS-Cov-2 assays were developed in line with the Food Drug Administration-Emergency Use Authorization guidance. Although new tests are continuously being developed, information about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic molecular test accuracy has been limited and at times controversial. Therefore, the analytical and clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 test kits should be carefully considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities and evaluated by independent laboratory validation. This would provide improved end-user confidence in selecting the most reliable and accurate diagnostic test. Moreover, it is unclear whether some of these rapidly developed tests have been subjected to rigorous quality control and assurance required under good manufacturing practice. Variable target gene regions selected for currently available tests, potential mutation in target gene regions, non-standardized pre-analytic phase, a lack of manufacturer independent validation data all create difficulties in selecting tests appropriate for different countries and laboratories. Here we provide information on test criteria which are important in the assessment and selection of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests and outline the potential issues associated with a proportion of the tests on the market.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsPathology, MolecularSensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19Diagnostic performanceReal-time RT-PCRSARS-CoV-2Test selection

Identifiers

PMID35441938
PMCPMC9019540
OpenAlexW4224221355

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.